Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Gould 0738 wrote:


We got Udai and Kusai ratted out for $30mm. A few days' expense, even at
a
reducd rate of a billion every 90 days.

Would $100 million rat out OBL? $200 million? $300 million, a US green
card,
and a total plastic surgery makeover for the informant and his family?
There's
a price that would buy OBL, and it's probably a lot cheaper than the
course
we're on.....*if* our intention is to catch the criminal ******* at the
head of
the organization that blew down the WTC etc.


Chuck, you assume that the people with the information, are as consumer,
and materially oriented as an American. Many of those people loath what
the american dollar stands for, and offering it as an incentive to "give
up" their comrades, will not have the same appeal. Offer them the 70
virgins and the all night party at Allah's, and then they might think
about it......

Dave

The burgeoning black market in the Middle East for Western goods suggests
that people over there are as materialistic as anyone else.

I hope you are right. It makes our job of "westernizing" them to reject
regressive totalitarian regimes that much easier.

But you still have to crack the Islamic fundamentalist, who still
belives that he'll go to Allah with 70 virgins if they kill an
infidel....

Dave

Gould 0738 wrote:

Chuck, you assume that the people with the information, are as consumer,
and materially oriented as an American. Many of those people loath what
the american dollar stands for, and offering it as an incentive to "give
up" their comrades, will not have the same appeal. Offer them the 70
virgins and the all night party at Allah's, and then they might think
about it......

Dave

Well let's do the math he

$200 million. Subtact 25 million to purchase a "palace" in most any state in
the union. $175 million left. Pay 100 guys
$100k a year each to guard your sorry butt for 50 years, $125 million left.
Hire 70 women to service your every desire. You should probably find women
willing to live in a palace and put on an act once ever so often for what,
$200k a year apiece? I guess it would take about ten years to screw through the
rest of the money- at which time even Allah would have to admit the gals were
no longer virgins.


The math is fine, but you're still assuming that these staunch followers
of radical islam, will be tempted by it.

Dave

Chuck,
Since you have all the answers to finding the terrorist leaders, have you
ever considered contacting the government, army and CIA. Copy the
newspapers on your suggestions so they can apply pressure so Bush and
Company don't continue to waste our time. I am not sure, but it might be
more effective than writing 1000 word essays in rec.boats.

If you really believe your suggestions have validity, it is silly not to
tell the people who can utilize this info.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
We knew for years who we were hunting in the Atlanta bombings. Your
argument
lost again. I think you're wrong about the price that would buy Osama.
How
much
would it take for you to plant a nuclear device under the Space Needle?



I wouldn't.

But you miss the point. The people closest to OBL are (according to what
we
know)
baby rapers, sadists, murderers, thugs, thieves, and other assorted
garbage.
They're all for sale.

Look at the suicide bombers: their families get a few thousand $US and
that
(partially) motivates a very desperate act.

Not everybody has a price, but we don't need "everybody" to rat out or
eliminate OBL.

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


BTW, there have been "news" articles, from the typical propagandists,
who try to spin this blackout as yet another failure of the Bush
administration.

I'd love to see those articles. Got any?

You know how to use google, look them up. I'm not doing your homework
for you. Try using "Bush administration" "blackout" and "failure" as
keywords.

Dave


OK...I see the problem here. In between "blackout" and "Bush", there is path
which winds too much for you to understand. Fortunately, we can straighten
the path so you won't hyperventilate:

1) Proven fact: Pollution from coal-burning electric generating plants in
the Midwest blows East, and ends up in NY, PA and New England. Chemists know
this because they've inserted tracers into fuel supplies and found those
same tracers downwind.

2) Proven fact: Among other things, the particulates include things like
mercury, which ends up in our water.

3) Politicians and electric companies from states like Ohio have STOPPED
claiming that #1 and #2 are untrue, and have switched to saying that it's
prohibitively expensive to install equipment which would drastically reduce
emissions.

4) Bush and his EPA are bending to the wishes of the parties mentioned in
#3, and allowing them to expand generating capacity without using technology
which would minimize the problems mentioned in #1 and #2.

5) Elliot Spitzer, NY's attorney general, is preparing to take the offending
parties to court before more damage is done.

I say Bush is hindering the production of sufficient electricity. You will
say Spitzer is the problem. Take your pick.


Ah! So you admit that people ARE blaming the blackout on the Bush
Administration, which you challenged me to find the proof of. Now you
want to spin it as "well yea, Bush is responsible, and here's why".
Nevermind that trhe issue of pollution and other conditions have been in
place isince the late 1970's and through several presidents in the
meantime.

But let me ask a question of pure logic; how is Bush, by "bending to the
wishes of the electric industry", making it harder to make electricity?
It would seem that if the electric companies are citing EPA regulations
as being too costly to comply with, as the excuse for the sorry state
that they are in, that Bush's sympathetic position would make it easier
for them to fix their problems. So tell me again how this is Bush's
fault?

Dave

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Joe" wrote in message
news
Really? What exactly did she say?

http://www.thejewishpress.com/news_a...p?article=2751



" Limbacher notes that a year ago, “Clinton slammed a Bush administration
proposal to
allow utilities to upgrade their plants by relaxing a few of the more
punishing environmental
regulations. She warned of ‘dirtier air and rising temperatures’ that would
expose citizens ‘to
increased childhood asthma rates, higher sea levels and more acid rain and
mercury-tainted
fish.’”

Must be painful when a politician says something which is true, something
which makes it even more obvious that your president has a huge supply of
kneepads which he uses when servicing his campaign contributors. Your boy is
currently doing exactly what Ms. Clinton mentioned: dismantling clean air
regulations. The results are obvious. Example: Tupper Lake, in the
Adirondacks, where I vacation each year, now has mercury warnings for most
of its fish. President Nookular Boy couldn't give a damn.

So then we should blame Clinton for the blackout, since Bush is the one
that wants to help them, while the environmental groups would rather the
electric generating plants go bust than relax pollution laws.

If it weren't so pathetic, it would be funny. Everyone complains about
the cost of energy yet the environmental faction of the left:

Opposes the creation of additional nuclear (nookular) plants, due to the
waste disposal issues.

Opposes the expansion of coal burning plants due to pollution issues.

Opposes the drilling for oil on our own shores to reduce the dependancy
on foreign oil, due to perceived environmental impacts.

Embraces new technology like wind power.... Unless you're a Kennedy and
oppose the locating of those windmills in your backyard.

Is now making noise about the large lakes (Which are also great boating
places) created for hydro-electic plants, due to changes to the natural
habitat. There are some who want to drain lakes like Mead and Powell.


Meanwhile, we are facing an energy crisis. The latest blackout, and the
crisis in California a few yeasr back, should serve as a warning and a
wake up call. Do we want energy or not? What will we be willing to give
up to get it?

Dave

The math is fine, but you're still assuming that these staunch followers
of radical islam, will be tempted by it.

Dave

oudai? kousai?

Only takes one guy, if it's the right guy.

On 27 Aug 2003 15:23:25 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

We knew for years who we were hunting in the Atlanta bombings. Your argument
lost again. I think you're wrong about the price that would buy Osama. How
much
would it take for you to plant a nuclear device under the Space Needle?



I wouldn't.

But you miss the point. The people closest to OBL are (according to what we
know)
baby rapers, sadists, murderers, thugs, thieves, and other assorted garbage.
They're all for sale.

Look at the suicide bombers: their families get a few thousand $US and that
(partially) motivates a very desperate act.

Not everybody has a price, but we don't need "everybody" to rat out or
eliminate OBL.

No, I don't miss the point. You made the point. Where do you get your
information about those closest to OBL? Who says they don't have the same
feelings for him that you have for the people of Seattle? Osama is not a poor
guy. The people closest to him are most likely living quite well and not
suffering for lack of money.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

But there ARE other members of whatever name you wish to apply to the
terrorists groups. The perps on 911 were not acting alone. While you can
cut off a plant by the branches, and it keeps growing back, until you
hit the roots of the evil, it will also keep coming back.

All BS aside Dave. The "roots of evil" lie deep in the hearts of all men. We
cannot premeptively kill everybody we judge capable of potential evil. There
would be nobody left.

The ringleaders should be brought to justice covertly.

For what purpose other than "feel good" pride? You think the group will
fall apart when the leader is caught? As far as we know OBL is already
dead, and the group is still functioning.

Because we are a system that is based on justice. (Justice is different than
revenge).
Justice demands that the guilty be made to account for the crimes of 9-11, etc.
Revenge does not serve justice, it just feels better to the common man.

We have captured several of the "top dogs" in Al Qaeda. How many more do
we need to catch? And even when we do, there are still junior members
ready to step in. We have to stamp out the environment which creates
these people.

Good idea. When do you propose we start? Most of our recent actions have
fostered international hatred for the US and
perpetuated the environment that spawns desperate criminal terrorist martyrs.


What's just a bit scary about your guy and his crew is the
espoused philosophy that we should now attack everybody who
might, in the future, do some harm to the United States (maybe).

That's one hell of an exaggeration. It's not the way you portrayed it.

No? why not go back up a few paragraphs to your comment about stamping out the
sources? Did you not mean invading the countries where we theorize the
terrorists might be, and tearing down any governments we thing might be
supporting them?

We have intelligence that tells our government (But not the propaganda
speculators) exactly who and where terrorists are likely to be hiding
out, and which governments either overtly or covertly support them.

We
have a responsibility to stamp out the whole plant, or it will just grow
back.

We know this: we better not miss as many as 19.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "19" reference.



Nineteen guys did 9-11.

No, it hasn't. You just misunderstood. I stated that If you believe that
it's in the best
interest of this country to NOT know all the gory details, then you
can't complain when they do hold back the information. And we know
that's the typical MO of the left, when they are constantly on the

attack, criticising the administration for not being "straight up" with
the people.

*if* the government chooses to make a public statement prior to or during the
invasion of a country or other dramatic, overt act, the government should not
deliberately mislead the public with that statement. That's not a tough
standard to accept, is it?

I have some very terrible news for you. The odds that you actually have any
clue about the actual "gory details" are close to zero.

The same goes for you, but that hasn't stopped you from speculating all
sorts of theories (not so coincidently critical of our administration's
motives) as to what has been happening and why. The whole "war for oil"
mindset.

We have exactly the same resources. The official government press releases. The
national and international media. Etc.

I have a specific source for questioning the administration's motives. It was
published and endorsed by the most influential members of Bush's cabinet
several years ago. It outlines a general gameplan for the United States to
establish a global empire, and recommends specific steps to accomplish the
goal. One of the first recommended steps is the occupation of Iraq. We're not
talking some left wing spinmeister's hallucination- we're talking about a
document that the right wing authors take enough pride in to publish on the
internet. You know exactly where to find it. (NAC)

All you or I know is what we read in the papers or (in your case) hear on
talk
radio.

And you too evidently. You seem to know far too much about what is being
spewed out by the latest Limbaugh clone.

The right wing is a dangerous element. It's good to know what the "group think"
is up to.

I listen about ten minutes a day. It's too hilariously entertaining to pass up
completely, and by analyzing the manipulative techniques these guys are using
so successfully one can learn quite a bit about controlling others with
prejudice, emotion, and misinformation.
Never can tell when skills like that might prove useful, or when it may be
necessary to more actively defend against same.

Every government, including this one, keeps important secrets from the
press.

You are correct, and for good reason. Yet why do your bretheran on the
left constantly criticize our administration for this practice? Why do
these people feel that the public has the right to know everything? And
when they find hints of certain classified material, they right away
jump to the conclusion that the government is "up to no good"? (Of
course this depends on whether there's a republican in office)

See previous comment. The government, D or R, should never use a press
conference, SOTU speech, or other "official" opportunities to deliberately
mislead the American people. It's flabbergasting that any two Americans would
ever disagree on this.........but, oh well.



International diplomacy is like a poker game- you might be likely to bluff
but
it's unlikely you'll show your actual cards around the table while the bets
are
going into the pot.

Except that we hold the winning hand.


I guess. "Let's see. A two of clubs, a four of diamonds, a jack of spades, a
king of hearts and a seven of clubs. Oh, yeah......
and a nuclear arsenal and status as the only remaining superpower in the
world.....
looks like we win again."

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


" Limbacher notes that a year ago, "Clinton slammed a Bush
administration
proposal to
allow utilities to upgrade their plants by relaxing a few of the more
punishing environmental
regulations. She warned of 'dirtier air and rising temperatures' that
would
expose citizens 'to
increased childhood asthma rates, higher sea levels and more acid rain
and
mercury-tainted
fish.'"

Must be painful when a politician says something which is true,
something
which makes it even more obvious that your president has a huge supply
of
kneepads which he uses when servicing his campaign contributors. Your
boy is
currently doing exactly what Ms. Clinton mentioned: dismantling clean
air
regulations. The results are obvious. Example: Tupper Lake, in the
Adirondacks, where I vacation each year, now has mercury warnings for
most
of its fish. President Nookular Boy couldn't give a damn.

So then we should blame Clinton for the blackout, since Bush is the one
that wants to help them, while the environmental groups would rather the
electric generating plants go bust than relax pollution laws.


Every public company's shareholders face risk, even in a relatively
bulletproof industry like mine (grocery). Utility shareholders have known
for at least 20 years that this day was coming. Tough ****.


If it weren't so pathetic, it would be funny. Everyone complains about
the cost of energy yet the environmental faction of the left:

Opposes the creation of additional nuclear (nookular) plants, due to the
waste disposal issues.

Would YOU like to live within 100 miles of a nuclear waste dump built near
an earthquake fault?



Opposes the expansion of coal burning plants due to pollution issues.

So, you think the "pollution issues" are acceptable as they are? How about
if they increase by 25%, and either kill the fish in your favorite waters,
or make those fish inedible? Do you consider that just incidental to our way
of life?


Opposes the drilling for oil on our own shores to reduce the dependancy
on foreign oil, due to perceived environmental impacts.

I guess you've forgotten the Exxon Valdez incident, and the fact that they
bitched and moaned about taking responsibility for it. Or, the fact that GE
still won't own up to its part in poisoning the Hudson River, and claims
they shouldn't have to help pay for it. These are NOT exceptions, Dave.


Embraces new technology like wind power.... Unless you're a Kennedy and
oppose the locating of those windmills in your backyard.

If that's true, it's silly. I think wind farms are cool, and I'm sure the
equipment manufacturers will gradually find ways to make the machinery more
attractive, just as cell tower manufacturers have.



Is now making noise about the large lakes (Which are also great boating
places) created for hydro-electic plants, due to changes to the natural
habitat. There are some who want to drain lakes like Mead and Powell.

Do you feel this type of opposition is the rule? In other words, for every
100 hydro facilities, how many are being picked on?


Meanwhile, we are facing an energy crisis. The latest blackout, and the
crisis in California a few yeasr back, should serve as a warning and a
wake up call. Do we want energy or not? What will we be willing to give
up to get it?

I'm not willing to give up clean air & water to appease the shareholders of
utilities in Ohio. Every company gets beat up sometimes. The well managed
ones recover just fine, especially when they have a virtual monopoly.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Which brings us back to the original statement, how would you "hunt"
down a criminal such as OBL or SH, when we have no legal right to
enter
the country which harbors him? If the host country refuses to help
us,
do we just turn around, or do we comitt an act of war by defying the
wishes of the host country? That was the whole premise for the
campaign
against Afghanistan and Iraq. Remember, that aiding the terrorists was
akin to being an accessory to the "crime", and are therefore equally
culpable.


I just figured it out, Dave. I can't believe it took so long. You are
actually a skel who lives on the streets, and stumbles into an internet
cafe
with panhandled coins to use their computer a couple of times a day. How
else could we explain what you just said, other than to blame
intravenous
narcotics use and a diet of Thunderbird?

"no legal right to enter the country which harbors him" ?????

So: If we sent spies to hunt down and kill OBL, that would be wrong
because
we might not have the legal right to enter countries without their
permission. But, if we send enough people in military uniforms, it's a
different story? A patriotic endeavor?


Sigh. It figures that you just don't get it. Try reading it again a
little slower this time.

The point, if you still don't get it, is that if we want to play the
good guy, and respect the sovereignty of all nations, then we have no
right to cross the borders of any country which hides terrorist camps,
without their cooperation. Last time I looked, most are not
cooperating. So what's the difference if we send in covert assasins or a
full blown military garrison?

Dave

The word "covert" answers your last question. By sending troops into a
sovereign nation, we did exactly what terrorists have been pointing at, as
an excuse for their actions. By using covert assassins, it's a bit harder to
pin the blame on us, at least in the eyes of the world.