|
If you don't believe that Democrats...
"WaIIy" wrote in message
... On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:22:23 GMT, Duke Nukem wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:55:56 -0800, "Calif Bill" wrote: Probably the only way to win is via force. Extreme Force. If a family sends one of their own as an attacker, kill the complete family. May not be PC, but the message will get through very quickly. Worked for the Russians in Lebanon. Yes it did, they learned a lesson. Was that when the Russians decided to cool their jets after one or more of their favorite operatives or diplomats were delivered in a less-than-healthy condition? I'm vague on the details and which period of time they relate to.... |
If you don't believe that Democrats...
"WaIIy" wrote in message
... On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:14:49 GMT, wrote: Probably the only way to win is via force. Extreme Force. If a family sends one of their own as an attacker, kill the complete family. May not be PC, but the message will get through very quickly. That will never accomplish anything other than to create more terrorists. I really don't think you understand the situation at all. Really. Yes, we should worry about offending people that hate our ****ing guts. Well, we keep trying the same **** over and over again, and it continues to NOT work. Even children figure out that this sort of approach is not rewarding after a short time. Matter of fact, other animals do, too. |
If you don't believe that Democrats...
"WaIIy" wrote in message
... On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:58:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "WaIIy" wrote in message . .. On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:22:23 GMT, Duke Nukem wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:55:56 -0800, "Calif Bill" wrote: Probably the only way to win is via force. Extreme Force. If a family sends one of their own as an attacker, kill the complete family. May not be PC, but the message will get through very quickly. Worked for the Russians in Lebanon. Yes it did, they learned a lesson. Was that when the Russians decided to cool their jets after one or more of their favorite operatives or diplomats were delivered in a less-than-healthy condition? I'm vague on the details and which period of time they relate to.... I have no links, nor do I have proof... I heard that just before the hostage crisis, they kidnapped a Russian. Shortly thereafter, the heads of the captors were seen rolling down the street. End of Russian hostage taking. Yeah - that's the one. |
If you don't believe that Democrats...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:33:20 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:54:00 -0800, "Calif Bill" wrote: "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "BAR" wrote in message . .. wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:09:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "BAR" wrote in message ... HK wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: have lost touch with America, read this. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7888.html Unbelievable. The Bush legacy includes 9-11, the Katrina aftermath, torture, secret energy policies, Halliburton, signing statements, Gonzales, no WMDs, Blackwater, 4,000 US troops dead, tens of thousands seriously wounded or ill, recession, housing meltdown, 40 million without health insurance, incredible national debt. And not one successful attack on the US by Followers of Islam. Every observer of recent history attributes the lack of attacks to something else. What do YOU attribute it to? Please don't say "the war on terror". That's too general. Please offer 2-3 specific actions that you feel have prevented an attack on U.S. soil. The war on terror is a global war. Not having an attack on US soil for a period of time is pretty much meaningless. You haven't eliminated or even subtantially reduced risk to US soil until you have eliminated terrorism worldwide. If you claim that's not the mission, or that that is not possible, then you are stating that the war on terror is unwinnable. If you want to be picky, and only think you need to worry specifically about Americans, their are thousands of American citizens all over the world who are also at risk from terrorists. The war on terrorism is not winnable. Terrorism by its own nature can rise and fall as the clouds go by. What you have to do is make examples of those who become terrorists. Summary executions will help. You can't fight the war on terrorism with paper. OK. But, you said the Bush legacy includes not one successful attack on the US by followers of Islam. This positive thing didn't happen just because Bush is the president. You need to connect it with physical measures taken to prevent the attacks. Can you name 2-3 measures which you believe prevented us from being attacked? According to You and Harry, 9/11 happened because of Bush as hit happened on his watch. Conversely, since no attacks on US soil have succeeded durings Bush's watch since 9/11. Bush is the reason we have been safe. Fill in your rant he They can easily counter that argument, to wit: 9/11 was Clinton's fault. Hah! You lost that one. -- John H Most likely. But there were a lot of people here claiming 9/11 was Bush's fault as he had the watch. That means nothing. Expediency is what matters. -- John H |
If you don't believe that Democrats...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ... Most likely. But there were a lot of people here claiming 9/11 was Bush's fault as he had the watch. 9/11 was Osama bin Laden's fault. Eisboch |
If you don't believe that Democrats...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:02:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 16, 4:33 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "D.Duck" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "D.Duck" wrote in message om... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "WaIIy" wrote in message m... On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:09:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "BAR" wrote in message ... HK wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: have lost touch with America, read this. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7888.html Unbelievable. The Bush legacy includes 9-11, the Katrina aftermath, torture, secret energy policies, Halliburton, signing statements, Gonzales, no WMDs, Blackwater, 4,000 US troops dead, tens of thousands seriously wounded or ill, recession, housing meltdown, 40 million without health insurance, incredible national debt. And not one successful attack on the US by Followers of Islam. Every observer of recent history attributes the lack of attacks to something else. What a stupid statement. OK - maybe you're right. Why do you think it's a stupid statement? I've spoken at length to 5 observers. They each attribute the lack of attacks to a different aspect of our efforts against terrorists. Why do you think it's a stupid statement? What/who are observers? People just like you. Do have an opinion, or are you completely without any thoughts at all about why we haven't been attacked here since 9/11? Yes I have an opinion but I surely wouldn't post it here and be ridiculed by the likes of you. I promise There is a laugh.. as you are known for your honesty and willingness to keep bargains/pay bets..;) I won't ridicule you when you post your thoughts Of course you will, it is all you have, these little "victories". You should try Halo 3, if you think you could keep up with the kids... on why we haven't been attacked here since 9/11. Let's do this a step at a time. In your opinion, is there more than one reason? Why don't you just frekin' educate us on what latest politically expedient reasoning is..? Joe, since you are sooooo smart;( ================= Sounds like you ladies are deathly afraid of expressing your opinions. Why is that? Are you so afraid of someone disagreeing with you? Pansies & puppies, all of you. Let's see if Bertie can explain why we haven't been attacked in the U.S. since 9/11. I suppose he'll be along later. Name calling has always been one of your strong points. Why would two reasonable people not want to attempt a discussion with you? Because they've got sense. -- John H |
If you don't believe that Democrats...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:53:39 -0500, Eisboch wrote:
9/11 was Osama bin Laden's fault. Eisboch 100% true, but did you think 6 years later he would still be out and about? I would argue *that* is Bush's fault. |
If you don't believe that Democrats...
|
If you don't believe that Democrats...
"BAR" wrote in message
. .. wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:53:39 -0500, Eisboch wrote: 9/11 was Osama bin Laden's fault. Eisboch 100% true, but did you think 6 years later he would still be out and about? I would argue *that* is Bush's fault. What would you have done differently to capture OBL? Don't tell me how Bush screwed it up and that the Democrats would have done it better. What actions would you Thunder have taken to track down OBL and capture or kill him? If I were president, my overall "flavor" would've been "**** national borders". If I think he's in your country, it's not your country until OBL is mine. Nothing wrong with that. Bush did it, but not to catch OBL. |
If you don't believe that Democrats...
wrote in message ... On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:53:39 -0500, Eisboch wrote: 9/11 was Osama bin Laden's fault. Eisboch 100% true, but did you think 6 years later he would still be out and about? I would argue *that* is Bush's fault. Bush's fault? |
If you don't believe that Democrats...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "BAR" wrote in message . .. wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:53:39 -0500, Eisboch wrote: 9/11 was Osama bin Laden's fault. Eisboch 100% true, but did you think 6 years later he would still be out and about? I would argue *that* is Bush's fault. What would you have done differently to capture OBL? Don't tell me how Bush screwed it up and that the Democrats would have done it better. What actions would you Thunder have taken to track down OBL and capture or kill him? If I were president, my overall "flavor" would've been "**** national borders". If I think he's in your country, it's not your country until OBL is mine. Gee. You are actually starting to sound like GWB ..... only worse. Eisboch |
If you don't believe that Democrats...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:50:05 -0500, BAR wrote:
wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:53:39 -0500, Eisboch wrote: 9/11 was Osama bin Laden's fault. Eisboch 100% true, but did you think 6 years later he would still be out and about? I would argue *that* is Bush's fault. What would you have done differently to capture OBL? Don't tell me how Bush screwed it up and that the Democrats would have done it better. What actions would you Thunder have taken to track down OBL and capture or kill him? Two things I can think of right off the top of my head, I wouldn't of been sidetracked by invading Iraq, or do you actually think there were WMD? Secondly, I would have kept the man who murdered 3000 Americans a priority. "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02 "I am truly not that concerned about him." - G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts, 3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02) Perhaps, you think differently, but I think the strongest statement that can be make in this "War on Terror" is to track down those that attacked us. |
If you don't believe that Democrats...
wrote in message ... On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:50:05 -0500, BAR wrote: wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:53:39 -0500, Eisboch wrote: 9/11 was Osama bin Laden's fault. Eisboch 100% true, but did you think 6 years later he would still be out and about? I would argue *that* is Bush's fault. What would you have done differently to capture OBL? Don't tell me how Bush screwed it up and that the Democrats would have done it better. What actions would you Thunder have taken to track down OBL and capture or kill him? Two things I can think of right off the top of my head, I wouldn't of been sidetracked by invading Iraq, or do you actually think there were WMD? Secondly, I would have kept the man who murdered 3000 Americans a priority. "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02 "I am truly not that concerned about him." - G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts, 3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02) Perhaps, you think differently, but I think the strongest statement that can be make in this "War on Terror" is to track down those that attacked us. Have you ever considered that bin Laden, as an individual, is *not* important. What is important is the world-wide, religiously based uprising against anything or anybody not believing in fundamental Islam. Bin Laden may be a vocal centerpiece and symbol, but he by himself is not that important. It would be good to get him for symbolic reasons, but if bin Laden was discovered dead tomorrow, nothing much would change. Bush may actually have his eye on the ball. It's the public that may be looking for a simplistic solution. Eisboch |
If you don't believe that Democrats...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:33:27 -0500, WaIIy wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:58:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "WaIIy" wrote in message . .. On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:22:23 GMT, Duke Nukem wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:55:56 -0800, "Calif Bill" wrote: Probably the only way to win is via force. Extreme Force. If a family sends one of their own as an attacker, kill the complete family. May not be PC, but the message will get through very quickly. Worked for the Russians in Lebanon. Yes it did, they learned a lesson. Was that when the Russians decided to cool their jets after one or more of their favorite operatives or diplomats were delivered in a less-than-healthy condition? I'm vague on the details and which period of time they relate to.... I have no links, nor do I have proof... I heard that just before the hostage crisis, they kidnapped a Russian. Shortly thereafter, the heads of the captors were seen rolling down the street. End of Russian hostage taking. Sort of. I remember it very well for reasons we won't get into here. A Russian "diplomat" and his bodyguard was kidnapped off the streets during the spate of kidnappings common then. They were released six hours later. The Russian KGB sent a messenger to the Hezbollah group doing the kidnapping with a simple message - we know who you are, who your famlies are and where they live. That's all it took. |
If you don't believe that Democrats...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "BAR" wrote in message . .. wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:53:39 -0500, Eisboch wrote: 9/11 was Osama bin Laden's fault. Eisboch 100% true, but did you think 6 years later he would still be out and about? I would argue *that* is Bush's fault. What would you have done differently to capture OBL? Don't tell me how Bush screwed it up and that the Democrats would have done it better. What actions would you Thunder have taken to track down OBL and capture or kill him? If I were president, my overall "flavor" would've been "**** national borders". If I think he's in your country, it's not your country until OBL is mine. Gee. You are actually starting to sound like GWB ..... only worse. Eisboch When one of my fillings from childhood deteriorates, my dentist says "You want novocaine while I fix this? It'll only hurt for about 8 seconds and I'll tell you when." We don't use novocaine. The filling gets fixed. It hurts for 8 seconds. GWB didn't do things like this. He had no idea how long it would hurt. Not a ****ing clue. |
If you don't believe that Democrats...
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:50:05 -0500, BAR wrote: wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:53:39 -0500, Eisboch wrote: 9/11 was Osama bin Laden's fault. Eisboch 100% true, but did you think 6 years later he would still be out and about? I would argue *that* is Bush's fault. What would you have done differently to capture OBL? Don't tell me how Bush screwed it up and that the Democrats would have done it better. What actions would you Thunder have taken to track down OBL and capture or kill him? Two things I can think of right off the top of my head, I wouldn't of been sidetracked by invading Iraq, or do you actually think there were WMD? Secondly, I would have kept the man who murdered 3000 Americans a priority. "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02 "I am truly not that concerned about him." - G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts, 3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02) Perhaps, you think differently, but I think the strongest statement that can be make in this "War on Terror" is to track down those that attacked us. You didn't answer the question. You made a statement, provided two quotes form GWB and my made another statement. Again, what would you have done to capture OBL? We already have the statements and quotes now please provide information on what you, Thunder, would or would have done to capture or kill OBL? |
If you don't believe that Democrats...
Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message ... On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:50:05 -0500, BAR wrote: wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:53:39 -0500, Eisboch wrote: 9/11 was Osama bin Laden's fault. Eisboch 100% true, but did you think 6 years later he would still be out and about? I would argue *that* is Bush's fault. What would you have done differently to capture OBL? Don't tell me how Bush screwed it up and that the Democrats would have done it better. What actions would you Thunder have taken to track down OBL and capture or kill him? Two things I can think of right off the top of my head, I wouldn't of been sidetracked by invading Iraq, or do you actually think there were WMD? Secondly, I would have kept the man who murdered 3000 Americans a priority. "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02 "I am truly not that concerned about him." - G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts, 3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02) Perhaps, you think differently, but I think the strongest statement that can be make in this "War on Terror" is to track down those that attacked us. Have you ever considered that bin Laden, as an individual, is *not* important. What is important is the world-wide, religiously based uprising against anything or anybody not believing in fundamental Islam. Bin Laden may be a vocal centerpiece and symbol, but he by himself is not that important. It would be good to get him for symbolic reasons, but if bin Laden was discovered dead tomorrow, nothing much would change. Bush may actually have his eye on the ball. It's the public that may be looking for a simplistic solution. If we kill OBL he becomes a martyr and is good for recruitment, for al-qiada. As it is now we have OBL looking over his shoulder every few minutes. Any time he hears and airplane or helicopter he has to run to a new hiding place. How powerful a had of a terrorist organization can you be when you are scurrying around like a rat from hiding place to hiding place? It would be better if OBL died of some natural cause not in the struggle for Islamic supremacy. |
If you don't believe that Democrats...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:55:56 -0800, "Calif Bill" wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:14:53 -0500, BAR wrote: wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:09:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "BAR" wrote in message ... HK wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: have lost touch with America, read this. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7888.html Unbelievable. The Bush legacy includes 9-11, the Katrina aftermath, torture, secret energy policies, Halliburton, signing statements, Gonzales, no WMDs, Blackwater, 4,000 US troops dead, tens of thousands seriously wounded or ill, recession, housing meltdown, 40 million without health insurance, incredible national debt. And not one successful attack on the US by Followers of Islam. Every observer of recent history attributes the lack of attacks to something else. What do YOU attribute it to? Please don't say "the war on terror". That's too general. Please offer 2-3 specific actions that you feel have prevented an attack on U.S. soil. The war on terror is a global war. Not having an attack on US soil for a period of time is pretty much meaningless. You haven't eliminated or even subtantially reduced risk to US soil until you have eliminated terrorism worldwide. If you claim that's not the mission, or that that is not possible, then you are stating that the war on terror is unwinnable. If you want to be picky, and only think you need to worry specifically about Americans, their are thousands of American citizens all over the world who are also at risk from terrorists. The war on terrorism is not winnable. Terrorism by its own nature can rise and fall as the clouds go by. What you have to do is make examples of those who become terrorists. Summary executions will help. You can't fight the war on terrorism with paper. The notion of a "war on terror" is laughable. I have news for you. You can't possibly win it by use of force. Probably the only way to win is via force. Extreme Force. If a family sends one of their own as an attacker, kill the complete family. May not be PC, but the message will get through very quickly. That will never accomplish anything other than to create more terrorists. I really don't think you understand the situation at all. Really. He knows what he's been told to think. Isn't that good enough? And you do not think. Worked for the Russians. And even if it does not accomplish anything other than removing 20 people that believe in Jihad, it does accomplish that. 1000 Jihadist == 20,000 fewer Jihadists. |
If you don't believe that Democrats...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:19:48 -0500, Eisboch wrote:
Have you ever considered that bin Laden, as an individual, is *not* important. What is important is the world-wide, religiously based uprising against anything or anybody not believing in fundamental Islam. Bin Laden may be a vocal centerpiece and symbol, but he by himself is not that important. If you are saying the jihad will go on without bin Laden, I wouldn't disagree, but that doesn't make bin Laden unimportant. He's more than a symbol. He's the man behind the murder of 3,000 Americans, and the fact that he is still breathing free air says something quite profound about us, doesn't it? It would be good to get him for symbolic reasons, but if bin Laden was discovered dead tomorrow, nothing much would change. Bush may actually have his eye on the ball. It's the public that may be looking for a simplistic solution. Which public is that? The one greeting us with flowers and dances in the street? Eisboch |
If you don't believe that Democrats...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:29:59 -0500, BAR wrote:
Again, what would you have done to capture OBL? We already have the statements and quotes now please provide information on what you, Thunder, would or would have done to capture or kill OBL? Oh please, it isn't about Monday morning quarterbacking, it's about desire. This administration put bin Laden on the back-burner, and it seems to me, we should know why. Did you know, the CIA unit that was tasked with capturing bin Laden was shut down in 2005? Why? |
If you don't believe that Democrats...
|
If you don't believe that Democrats...
|
If you don't believe that Democrats...
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:35:47 -0500, BAR wrote: Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:50:05 -0500, BAR wrote: wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:53:39 -0500, Eisboch wrote: 9/11 was Osama bin Laden's fault. Eisboch 100% true, but did you think 6 years later he would still be out and about? I would argue *that* is Bush's fault. What would you have done differently to capture OBL? Don't tell me how Bush screwed it up and that the Democrats would have done it better. What actions would you Thunder have taken to track down OBL and capture or kill him? Two things I can think of right off the top of my head, I wouldn't of been sidetracked by invading Iraq, or do you actually think there were WMD? Secondly, I would have kept the man who murdered 3000 Americans a priority. "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02 "I am truly not that concerned about him." - G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts, 3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02) Perhaps, you think differently, but I think the strongest statement that can be make in this "War on Terror" is to track down those that attacked us. Have you ever considered that bin Laden, as an individual, is *not* important. What is important is the world-wide, religiously based uprising against anything or anybody not believing in fundamental Islam. Bin Laden may be a vocal centerpiece and symbol, but he by himself is not that important. It would be good to get him for symbolic reasons, but if bin Laden was discovered dead tomorrow, nothing much would change. Bush may actually have his eye on the ball. It's the public that may be looking for a simplistic solution. If we kill OBL he becomes a martyr and is good for recruitment, for al-qiada. Not under MY plan, he doesn't. Enlighten us please. |
If you don't believe that Democrats...
|
If you don't believe that Democrats...
On Jan 16, 5:14*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:55:56 -0800, "Calif Bill" wrote: wrote in message .. . On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:14:53 -0500, BAR wrote: wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:09:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "BAR" wrote in message ... HK wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: have lost touch with America, read this. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7888.html Unbelievable. The Bush legacy includes 9-11, the Katrina aftermath, torture, secret energy policies, Halliburton, signing statements, Gonzales, no WMDs, Blackwater, 4,000 US troops dead, tens of thousands seriously wounded or ill, recession, housing meltdown, 40 million without health insurance, incredible national debt. And not one successful attack on the US by Followers of Islam. Every observer of recent history attributes the lack of attacks to something else. What do YOU attribute it to? Please don't say "the war on terror". That's too general. Please offer 2-3 specific actions that you feel have prevented an attack on U.S. soil. The war on terror is a global war. Not having an attack on US soil for a period of time is pretty much meaningless. You haven't eliminated or even subtantially reduced risk to US soil until you have eliminated terrorism worldwide. If you claim that's not the mission, or that that is not possible, then you are stating that the war on terror is unwinnable. If you want to be picky, and only think you need to worry specifically about Americans, their are thousands of American citizens all over the world who are also at risk from terrorists. The war on terrorism is not winnable. Terrorism by its own nature can rise and fall as the clouds go by. What you have to do is make examples of those who become terrorists. Summary executions will help. You can't fight the war on terrorism with paper. The notion of a "war on terror" is laughable. I have news for you. You can't possibly win it by use of force. Probably the only way to win is via force. *Extreme Force. *If a family sends one of their own as an attacker, kill the complete family. *May not be PC, but the message will get through very quickly. That will never accomplish anything other than to create more terrorists. I really don't think you understand the situation at all. Really.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Exactly! Hell, most of the world now either hates us, or sees us a bunch of Keystone cops bumbling through the world! |
If you don't believe that Democrats...
On Jan 16, 12:45*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Jan 16, 11:29 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "BAR" wrote in message ... wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:09:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "BAR" wrote in message ... HK wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: have lost touch with America, read this. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7888.html Unbelievable. The Bush legacy includes 9-11, the Katrina aftermath, torture, secret energy policies, Halliburton, signing statements, Gonzales, no WMDs, Blackwater, 4,000 US troops dead, tens of thousands seriously wounded or ill, recession, housing meltdown, 40 million without health insurance, incredible national debt. And not one successful attack on the US by Followers of Islam. Every observer of recent history attributes the lack of attacks to something else. What do YOU attribute it to? Please don't say "the war on terror". That's too general. Please offer 2-3 specific actions that you feel have prevented an attack on U.S. soil. The war on terror is a global war. Not having an attack on US soil for a period of time is pretty much meaningless. You haven't eliminated or even subtantially reduced risk to US soil until you have eliminated terrorism worldwide. If you claim that's not the mission, or that that is not possible, then you are stating that the war on terror is unwinnable. If you want to be picky, and only think you need to worry specifically about Americans, their are thousands of American citizens all over the world who are also at risk from terrorists. The war on terrorism is not winnable. Terrorism by its own nature can rise and fall as the clouds go by. What you have to do is make examples of those who become terrorists. Summary executions will help. You can't fight the war on terrorism with paper. OK. But, you said the Bush legacy includes not one successful attack on the US by followers of Islam. This positive thing didn't happen just because Bush is the president. You need to connect it with physical measures taken to prevent the attacks. Can you name 2-3 measures which you believe prevented us from being attacked?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - 1. Because he believes Bush can do no wrong because he's a Republican 2. Rush said so 3. Hannity said so. ======================= Actually, there *were* some measures that may have prevented the attacks, but I need to know which ones Bert is referring to.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Good luck! |
If you don't believe that Democrats...
|
If you don't believe that Democrats...
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:57:02 -0500, BAR wrote:
wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:35:47 -0500, BAR wrote: Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:50:05 -0500, BAR wrote: wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:53:39 -0500, Eisboch wrote: 9/11 was Osama bin Laden's fault. Eisboch 100% true, but did you think 6 years later he would still be out and about? I would argue *that* is Bush's fault. What would you have done differently to capture OBL? Don't tell me how Bush screwed it up and that the Democrats would have done it better. What actions would you Thunder have taken to track down OBL and capture or kill him? Two things I can think of right off the top of my head, I wouldn't of been sidetracked by invading Iraq, or do you actually think there were WMD? Secondly, I would have kept the man who murdered 3000 Americans a priority. "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02 "I am truly not that concerned about him." - G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts, 3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02) Perhaps, you think differently, but I think the strongest statement that can be make in this "War on Terror" is to track down those that attacked us. Have you ever considered that bin Laden, as an individual, is *not* important. What is important is the world-wide, religiously based uprising against anything or anybody not believing in fundamental Islam. Bin Laden may be a vocal centerpiece and symbol, but he by himself is not that important. It would be good to get him for symbolic reasons, but if bin Laden was discovered dead tomorrow, nothing much would change. Bush may actually have his eye on the ball. It's the public that may be looking for a simplistic solution. If we kill OBL he becomes a martyr and is good for recruitment, for al-qiada. Not under MY plan, he doesn't. Enlighten us please. Publish a picture of his detached head, toss all his parts in the middle of an undisclosed ocean, and never say another word about him. Of course the TV forensic pathologists will cry about not being able to perform an autopsy, like they did with Bhutto, to find out how she *really* died. --Vic |
If you don't believe that Democrats...
wrote in message
... On Jan 16, 12:45 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 16, 11:29 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "BAR" wrote in message ... wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:09:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "BAR" wrote in message ... HK wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: have lost touch with America, read this. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7888.html Unbelievable. The Bush legacy includes 9-11, the Katrina aftermath, torture, secret energy policies, Halliburton, signing statements, Gonzales, no WMDs, Blackwater, 4,000 US troops dead, tens of thousands seriously wounded or ill, recession, housing meltdown, 40 million without health insurance, incredible national debt. And not one successful attack on the US by Followers of Islam. Every observer of recent history attributes the lack of attacks to something else. What do YOU attribute it to? Please don't say "the war on terror". That's too general. Please offer 2-3 specific actions that you feel have prevented an attack on U.S. soil. The war on terror is a global war. Not having an attack on US soil for a period of time is pretty much meaningless. You haven't eliminated or even subtantially reduced risk to US soil until you have eliminated terrorism worldwide. If you claim that's not the mission, or that that is not possible, then you are stating that the war on terror is unwinnable. If you want to be picky, and only think you need to worry specifically about Americans, their are thousands of American citizens all over the world who are also at risk from terrorists. The war on terrorism is not winnable. Terrorism by its own nature can rise and fall as the clouds go by. What you have to do is make examples of those who become terrorists. Summary executions will help. You can't fight the war on terrorism with paper. OK. But, you said the Bush legacy includes not one successful attack on the US by followers of Islam. This positive thing didn't happen just because Bush is the president. You need to connect it with physical measures taken to prevent the attacks. Can you name 2-3 measures which you believe prevented us from being attacked?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - 1. Because he believes Bush can do no wrong because he's a Republican 2. Rush said so 3. Hannity said so. ======================= Actually, there *were* some measures that may have prevented the attacks, but I need to know which ones Bert is referring to.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Good luck! =================== He's lost track of the discussion by now. He's got a very short attention span. |
If you don't believe that Democrats...
"BAR" wrote in message
... wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:35:47 -0500, BAR wrote: Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:50:05 -0500, BAR wrote: wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:53:39 -0500, Eisboch wrote: 9/11 was Osama bin Laden's fault. Eisboch 100% true, but did you think 6 years later he would still be out and about? I would argue *that* is Bush's fault. What would you have done differently to capture OBL? Don't tell me how Bush screwed it up and that the Democrats would have done it better. What actions would you Thunder have taken to track down OBL and capture or kill him? Two things I can think of right off the top of my head, I wouldn't of been sidetracked by invading Iraq, or do you actually think there were WMD? Secondly, I would have kept the man who murdered 3000 Americans a priority. "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02 "I am truly not that concerned about him." - G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts, 3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02) Perhaps, you think differently, but I think the strongest statement that can be make in this "War on Terror" is to track down those that attacked us. Have you ever considered that bin Laden, as an individual, is *not* important. What is important is the world-wide, religiously based uprising against anything or anybody not believing in fundamental Islam. Bin Laden may be a vocal centerpiece and symbol, but he by himself is not that important. It would be good to get him for symbolic reasons, but if bin Laden was discovered dead tomorrow, nothing much would change. Bush may actually have his eye on the ball. It's the public that may be looking for a simplistic solution. If we kill OBL he becomes a martyr and is good for recruitment, for al-qiada. Not under MY plan, he doesn't. Enlighten us please. How about YOU enlightening us about what measures have prevented any further attacks on U.S. soil? You left that question hanging yesterday. |
If you don't believe that Democrats...
"John H." wrote in message
... On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:11:57 -0000, wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:19:48 -0500, Eisboch wrote: Have you ever considered that bin Laden, as an individual, is *not* important. What is important is the world-wide, religiously based uprising against anything or anybody not believing in fundamental Islam. Bin Laden may be a vocal centerpiece and symbol, but he by himself is not that important. If you are saying the jihad will go on without bin Laden, I wouldn't disagree, but that doesn't make bin Laden unimportant. He's more than a symbol. He's the man behind the murder of 3,000 Americans, and the fact that he is still breathing free air says something quite profound about us, doesn't it? Yeah, it says we decided not to invade Pakistan. What's that supposed to mean? That we're honorable for not invading Pakistan? Uh oh. |
If you don't believe that Democrats...
"BAR" wrote in message
... wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:29:59 -0500, BAR wrote: Again, what would you have done to capture OBL? We already have the statements and quotes now please provide information on what you, Thunder, would or would have done to capture or kill OBL? Oh please, it isn't about Monday morning quarterbacking, it's about desire. This administration put bin Laden on the back-burner, and it seems to me, we should know why. Did you know, the CIA unit that was tasked with capturing bin Laden was shut down in 2005? Why? You are the one making statements and assertions that GWB screwed by not focusing all or our intelligence agencies and our military on the capture of a single enfeebled man, OBL. The movement is more important than a single man. The movement will survive the capture and or death of OBL. OBL dying in dark cave in the mountains is a good thing. Never mind OBL. You still haven't explained which specific measures have prevented us from being attacked again. Stop avoiding the question. |
If you don't believe that Democrats...
"John H." wrote in message ... On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:11:57 -0000, wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:19:48 -0500, Eisboch wrote: Have you ever considered that bin Laden, as an individual, is *not* important. What is important is the world-wide, religiously based uprising against anything or anybody not believing in fundamental Islam. Bin Laden may be a vocal centerpiece and symbol, but he by himself is not that important. If you are saying the jihad will go on without bin Laden, I wouldn't disagree, but that doesn't make bin Laden unimportant. He's more than a symbol. He's the man behind the murder of 3,000 Americans, and the fact that he is still breathing free air says something quite profound about us, doesn't it? Yeah, it says we decided not to invade Pakistan. I agree. The politics and logistics of the "hunt" is very complex. There's always the danger of causing more chaos in the world than that already existing. If GWB acted like the "cowboy" that his critics claim he is, he would have ignored Pakistan's soveriency claims and sent the troops in to capture or kill bin Laden. It may have accomplished a short term goal but would have set off another major crisis. Nope. Iraq is making more and more sense as being the focal point on the war on terror. No surrounding nations liked Sadam; in fact they were threatened by him. The people of Iraq were oppressed and treated to terrorism from within. Rather than invade every country where members of Al Qaeda reside, or the many terrorist organizations associated with Al Qaeda (al Jihad, the National Islamic Front, Hezballah and others) all of whom, BTW, share a common goal .... the defeat of western civilization and freedom, particularly that represented by the United States, it makes more sense to bring them to us. If that was the plan, it's working to a degree. Eisboch |
If you don't believe that Democrats...
"CalifBill" wrote in message
... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:55:56 -0800, "Calif Bill" wrote: wrote in message m... On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:14:53 -0500, BAR wrote: wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:09:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "BAR" wrote in message ... HK wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: have lost touch with America, read this. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7888.html Unbelievable. The Bush legacy includes 9-11, the Katrina aftermath, torture, secret energy policies, Halliburton, signing statements, Gonzales, no WMDs, Blackwater, 4,000 US troops dead, tens of thousands seriously wounded or ill, recession, housing meltdown, 40 million without health insurance, incredible national debt. And not one successful attack on the US by Followers of Islam. Every observer of recent history attributes the lack of attacks to something else. What do YOU attribute it to? Please don't say "the war on terror". That's too general. Please offer 2-3 specific actions that you feel have prevented an attack on U.S. soil. The war on terror is a global war. Not having an attack on US soil for a period of time is pretty much meaningless. You haven't eliminated or even subtantially reduced risk to US soil until you have eliminated terrorism worldwide. If you claim that's not the mission, or that that is not possible, then you are stating that the war on terror is unwinnable. If you want to be picky, and only think you need to worry specifically about Americans, their are thousands of American citizens all over the world who are also at risk from terrorists. The war on terrorism is not winnable. Terrorism by its own nature can rise and fall as the clouds go by. What you have to do is make examples of those who become terrorists. Summary executions will help. You can't fight the war on terrorism with paper. The notion of a "war on terror" is laughable. I have news for you. You can't possibly win it by use of force. Probably the only way to win is via force. Extreme Force. If a family sends one of their own as an attacker, kill the complete family. May not be PC, but the message will get through very quickly. That will never accomplish anything other than to create more terrorists. I really don't think you understand the situation at all. Really. He knows what he's been told to think. Isn't that good enough? And you do not think. Worked for the Russians. And even if it does not accomplish anything other than removing 20 people that believe in Jihad, it does accomplish that. 1000 Jihadist == 20,000 fewer Jihadists. Where do you think it worked for the Russians? Be very specific. WHERE? |
If you don't believe that Democrats...
"John H." wrote in message
... On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:02:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 16, 4:33 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "D.Duck" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "D.Duck" wrote in message om... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "WaIIy" wrote in message m... On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:09:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "BAR" wrote in message ... HK wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: have lost touch with America, read this. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7888.html Unbelievable. The Bush legacy includes 9-11, the Katrina aftermath, torture, secret energy policies, Halliburton, signing statements, Gonzales, no WMDs, Blackwater, 4,000 US troops dead, tens of thousands seriously wounded or ill, recession, housing meltdown, 40 million without health insurance, incredible national debt. And not one successful attack on the US by Followers of Islam. Every observer of recent history attributes the lack of attacks to something else. What a stupid statement. OK - maybe you're right. Why do you think it's a stupid statement? I've spoken at length to 5 observers. They each attribute the lack of attacks to a different aspect of our efforts against terrorists. Why do you think it's a stupid statement? What/who are observers? People just like you. Do have an opinion, or are you completely without any thoughts at all about why we haven't been attacked here since 9/11? Yes I have an opinion but I surely wouldn't post it here and be ridiculed by the likes of you. I promise There is a laugh.. as you are known for your honesty and willingness to keep bargains/pay bets..;) I won't ridicule you when you post your thoughts Of course you will, it is all you have, these little "victories". You should try Halo 3, if you think you could keep up with the kids... on why we haven't been attacked here since 9/11. Let's do this a step at a time. In your opinion, is there more than one reason? Why don't you just frekin' educate us on what latest politically expedient reasoning is..? Joe, since you are sooooo smart;( ================= Sounds like you ladies are deathly afraid of expressing your opinions. Why is that? Are you so afraid of someone disagreeing with you? Pansies & puppies, all of you. Let's see if Bertie can explain why we haven't been attacked in the U.S. since 9/11. I suppose he'll be along later. Name calling has always been one of your strong points. Why would two reasonable people not want to attempt a discussion with you? Because they've got sense. -- John H Bertie won't answer the question because he CAN'T answer the question. "Under" GWB, we haven't been attacked again, he says. But Bertie can't offer what he believes are specific measures which have kept us from being attacked here. I know why he won't address the question, but I want to hear him say it. |
If you don't believe that Democrats...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message ... On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:11:57 -0000, wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:19:48 -0500, Eisboch wrote: Have you ever considered that bin Laden, as an individual, is *not* important. What is important is the world-wide, religiously based uprising against anything or anybody not believing in fundamental Islam. Bin Laden may be a vocal centerpiece and symbol, but he by himself is not that important. If you are saying the jihad will go on without bin Laden, I wouldn't disagree, but that doesn't make bin Laden unimportant. He's more than a symbol. He's the man behind the murder of 3,000 Americans, and the fact that he is still breathing free air says something quite profound about us, doesn't it? Yeah, it says we decided not to invade Pakistan. What's that supposed to mean? That we're honorable for not invading Pakistan? Uh oh. JSB, You and Vic are sounding the ultra Reich Wing Hawks. Nuke them all, let God sort them out. I can't believe anyone would actually use the term RAGHEAD to describe our ally. |
If you don't believe that Democrats...
Vic Smith wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:19:29 -0000, wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:29:59 -0500, BAR wrote: Again, what would you have done to capture OBL? We already have the statements and quotes now please provide information on what you, Thunder, would or would have done to capture or kill OBL? Oh please, it isn't about Monday morning quarterbacking, it's about desire. This administration put bin Laden on the back-burner, and it seems to me, we should know why. Did you know, the CIA unit that was tasked with capturing bin Laden was shut down in 2005? Why? About getting Bin Laden, I'm not sure if the blame lies with the politicians or the military. Don't know if a truthful history has been written, and I don't claim to know all the facts. But I do remember how I felt when he was trapped at Tora Bora and the job to get him was outsourced to ragheads. I thought that whoever was in charge didn't want to suffer the U.S. casualties that boots on the ground there would mean. Not the troops, they were ready as hell to get the cocksucker, and would have died to get him. The leadership. He got away because the leaders were pussies. Tommy Franks or George Bush. Take your pick. And that's how I still feel. Bin Laden loose is a disgrace to America. And anybody who disagrees can just kiss my ass in advance, because I ain't going to argue about it. --Vic DAMN, RAGHEAD to describe our ally? Invade Pakinstan, another ally? This group has more ultra right wing hawks than I thought. |
If you don't believe that Democrats...
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message . .. DAMN, RAGHEAD to describe our ally? Invade Pakinstan, another ally? This group has more ultra right wing hawks than I thought. Well, a diversity of opinions, anyway. There's one thing for sure though, and it's true no matter what the objective. You only truly lose when you give up. Eisboch |
If you don't believe that Democrats...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "John H." wrote in message ... On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:11:57 -0000, wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:19:48 -0500, Eisboch wrote: Have you ever considered that bin Laden, as an individual, is *not* important. What is important is the world-wide, religiously based uprising against anything or anybody not believing in fundamental Islam. Bin Laden may be a vocal centerpiece and symbol, but he by himself is not that important. If you are saying the jihad will go on without bin Laden, I wouldn't disagree, but that doesn't make bin Laden unimportant. He's more than a symbol. He's the man behind the murder of 3,000 Americans, and the fact that he is still breathing free air says something quite profound about us, doesn't it? Yeah, it says we decided not to invade Pakistan. I agree. The politics and logistics of the "hunt" is very complex. There's always the danger of causing more chaos in the world than that already existing. If GWB acted like the "cowboy" that his critics claim he is, he would have ignored Pakistan's soveriency claims and sent the troops in to capture or kill bin Laden. It may have accomplished a short term goal but would have set off another major crisis. Psssst! Can I tell you a little secret? GWB already ignores the sovereignty of other countries. Please don't say silly things about how we should respect the sovereignty of other countries. If you insist on saying silly things like that, then you need to explain how the invasion of Iraq fits your definition of respecting sovereignty. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:46 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com