"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....

"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.

"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.

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.

I think you have a mis-guided view of human nature.

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
news 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

"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

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
news "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

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.

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?

"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.