I for one believe that dissenting opinion is good for America. Since you
have such strong beliefs and you have the answers, I just wish you would be
able to help solve the problems. I am not sure, but I don't know how many
cabinet members, members of congress or those in power who could actually
help solve these problems read rec.boats. Possible a letter to the editors
might be help the Bush Admin. see the how futile their efforts have been.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
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.




Kerist.

I expressed an opinion.

I know, there's no need to express any opinions that differ from the
"official"
opinions held by the Bush cabinet and
expounded upon by their radio prophets.

To do so would be unpatriotic.

Flog me already.



"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.

Is "covert action" another name for terrorist action?


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"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.

Actually Chuck is a self proclaimed extreme left liberal Dem. When he thinks Howard
Dean is to conservative for his taste, one can see how far left old Chuck is.


"Bill Cole" wrote in message
news
So it looks like the current administration is doing a good job tracking
down the top 50 Iraqi's. I think they have found over 80% of them. Let's
be honest Chuck, you are only interested in finding fault because you do not
like Bush's party. Be proud of the fact that you are a democrat, don't be
ashamed. Stand up and say, "I am Chuck and I am a democrat". You will
feel better for it.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
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.

"Jim" wrote in message
. net...
Actually Chuck is a self proclaimed extreme left liberal Dem. When he thinks Howard
Dean is to conservative for his taste, one can see how far left old Chuck is.



Oops, make that "too" conservative.

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 23:13:25 GMT, "Bill Cole" wrote:

So it looks like the current administration is doing a good job tracking
down the top 50 Iraqi's. I think they have found over 80% of them. Let's
be honest Chuck, you are only interested in finding fault because you do not
like Bush's party. Be proud of the fact that you are a democrat, don't be
ashamed. Stand up and say, "I am Chuck and I am a democrat". You will
feel better for it.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
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.

You're comin' down pretty hard there, Bill. Prolly oughta ease up on him some or
he'll stop writing those great articles 'bout boating in the great northwest.

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

When Chuck writes anything concerning boating, he is one of the best
contributors in this newsgroup. When he is spewing forth his political bs
he is just static.


"JohnH" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 23:13:25 GMT, "Bill Cole"
wrote:

So it looks like the current administration is doing a good job tracking
down the top 50 Iraqi's. I think they have found over 80% of them.
Let's
be honest Chuck, you are only interested in finding fault because you do
not
like Bush's party. Be proud of the fact that you are a democrat, don't
be
ashamed. Stand up and say, "I am Chuck and I am a democrat". You will
feel better for it.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
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.

You're comin' down pretty hard there, Bill. Prolly oughta ease up on him
some or
he'll stop writing those great articles 'bout boating in the great
northwest.

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

You're comin' down pretty hard there, Bill. Prolly oughta ease up on him some
or
he'll stop writing those great articles 'bout boating in the great northwest.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale,

Bill? Coming down hard? He's one of the more rational righties, IMO. Sticks to
issues rather than name calling, (most of the time), a record that some of his
fellow travelers should aspire to.

Happy to exchange jabs with Bill any day.
He generally says "I think you're wrong, and here's why......" rather than "I
think you're wrong because anybody left of GWB is always wrong and you,
personally, are a sh*thead." A tactic some of his fellow travelers should
consider emulating.

"Gould 0738" wrote in

We were discussing the response to 9-11.
How many of the "top 50 Iraqis
had a hand in 9-11?

Where's Osama Bin Ladin?
Where's Saddam Hussein?

I did not know Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11, but since you
believe he was, shouldn't we go after his top 50 henchmen?

Where are the weapons of mass destruction that posed an imminent danger to
the
United States?

I thought we were discussing 9-11, but to answer your question anyway, if I
was a betting man, I would guess they are over in Syria or buried out in the
middle of the desert. Do you honestly believe that SH was not stockpiling
weapons of MD? Do you believe the pictures of his citizens killed with
weapons of mass destruction were a figment of the bush administration? Do
you believe he was trying to develope a nuclear weapon was a figent of the
bush administration? I doubt he has nuclear capabilities today, but he has
been working on it for years. Even Clinton's administration was concerned
about SH and his weapons of MD.

Bill Cole wrote:

I for one believe that dissenting opinion is good for America.

As is your right to counter said opinion.

Since you
have such strong beliefs and you have the answers, I just wish you would be
able to help solve the problems. I am not sure, but I don't know how many
cabinet members, members of congress or those in power who could actually
help solve these problems read rec.boats.

Try none.


Possible a letter to the editors
might be help the Bush Admin. see the how futile their efforts have been.

That sounds like a great idea. The common people should all give up expressing
any opinions, and just write letters to editors and politicians. I suppose you
would still allow all opinions that support your conservative agenda, however?

That's the wonderful thing about freedom of speech. I'm free to speak. You're
free to say "shut up", and I don't have to listen.
Same thing works 180 degrees around.

As for the Bush administration seeing "how futile" their efforts have been?
I believe that everything is going pretty well in accordance with the Bush
plan. Failure to capture OBL for almost 2 years now, failure to find WMD,
failure to find SH.......none of those things are really important- even though
we were told they were our moral justifications for the last two wars.

I did not know Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11, but since you
believe he was, shouldn't we go after his top 50 henchmen?

You introduced the "top 50 Iraqis" into the discussion about responding to
9-11.
Even though our government implied that SH conspired with his sworn, mortal
enemy, OBL, to pull of 9-11, the case seems weak at best.

I thought we were discussing 9-11, but to answer your question anyway, if I
was a betting man, I would guess they are over in Syria or buried out in the
middle of the desert. Do you honestly believe that SH was not stockpiling
weapons of MD?

If he had any, they were manufactured outside of Iraq and brought in. The last
time we were able to detect any trace of WMD manufacture in Iraq was 1998.
Inspectors last year not only did not find any weapons, they were unable to
detect even the slightest chemical or biological trace of any recent
manufacturing activity. The ordinance has a 3- 5year shelf life.

Item from Radio Netherlands (hopefully an acceptably objective source) follows:

*******
With the battle for Baghdad fizzling out without the use of chemical weapons by
Iraqi troops, Washington's critics are demanding to know what has happened to
Saddam Hussein's purported weapons of mass destruction. Former chief UN weapons
inspector in Iraq Scott Ritter is one of those who has heaped scorn upon
President George Bush's administration for going to war. In this interview with
RN's Saskia van Reenan, Mr Ritter, a former US marine officer, explains why he
sees US justifications for waging war as dishonest excuses for empire-building.

"The threat that Iraq poses from weapons of mass destruction I think has been
clearly exposed as a lie. We were told to expect chemical weapons to rain down
on troops as soon as they crossed over the border from Kuwait into Iraq, but
that didn't happen. We were then told that as we closed in on the so-called
‘red line' around Baghdad – the 50-mile circle – that as soon as we
breached that, chemical weapons would be used. That didn't happen. Then we said
chemical weapons would be used as a last-gasp defence of Baghdad but that
didn't happen. What chemical weapons? We were told that the presidential
palaces were brimming over with weapons of mass destruction, but we now occupy
many of the presidential palaces and we've found nothing."

"If Iraq were to have weapons of mass destruction today, they would have had to
reconstitute a manufacturing base since 1998, since weapons inspectors left. No
one has provided any information of a substantive nature that sustains that
allegation. Clearly Iraq had the potential, they had time, they had four years
between the time I left and other inspectors left in 1998 and the time that the
new UNMOVIC inspectors returned in the fall of 2002."

"I have clearly stated that Iraq could reconstitute a limited capability within
six months, so the potential is there for Iraq to have done this, but that
potential doesn't automatically translate into reality, and we did have
inspectors on the ground for almost four months, and they found nothing.
Furthermore they investigated over a dozen sites highlighted by the Central
Intelligence Agency as being prime suspects for producing weapons of mass
destruction and they have found nothing."

(sidebar begins)
DISSENSION IN THE RANKS: Scott Ritter began his fall from grace in the eyes of
the US establishment in the first Gulf War, when as a junior military
intelligence analyst he began filing reports contradicting the official US
estimates of the number of Scud missiles destroyed. Later appointed chief UN
weapons inspector in Iraq, he resigned in 1998, claiming that President Bill
Clinton was too lenient on Saddam Hussein's regime. Since then, Mr Ritter has
performed what his critics see as an about-face; he now says it is highly
unlikely Baghdad possesses dangerous amounts of weapons of mass destruction.

( Side bar ends-Ritter's comments continue):

"Clearly Iraq could have hidden something, we know that Iraq tried to hide
things from us in the past, but this 5 to 10 percent of unaccounted-for
material doesn't mean that Iraq didn't account for it, it means that we can't
verify the Iraqi accounting. Iraq claims to have destroyed everything, they
just can't prove that they destroyed everything. We can prove that 90 to 95
percent were accounted for."

"But let's talk about that missing material. In the field of biological
materials, anthrax. Iraq produced anthrax in liquid bulk form, it has a shelf
life of three years under ideal storage conditions, the last known batch came
out in 1991. I might be a simple marine, not able to do adequate mathematics,
but I think 1991 plus three gives you 1994. What anthrax does Iraq have? None
of the anthrax they produced prior to 1991 can be viable today, it simply can't
be."

"The nerve agent sarin: there's talk of 1000 tonnes of Iraqi nerve agent
unaccounted for, because there's 6500 munitions that we can't account for
dating from 1983 to 88. The problem is, that even if Iraq tried to hide that
stuff, it can't be viable today because that nerve agent has a shelf-life of
five years. So even though we can't give a final disposition of that 5 to 10
per cent that's unaccounted for, I can tell you this; regardless of what
happened to it, it's not worth anything today, it can't hurt anyone. So I come
back to the basic question: what weapons of mass destruction?"

***********************

Now, Bill, this guy was only the chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq for a
while. Surely, he can't know as much as Rush Limbaugh or the other rw radio
spinmeisters about WMD.