On Mar 13, 5:13*pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 13, 5:03 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:47:01 -0500, John H. wrote:
You might want to consider, Republicans' were rather slow to come around
to the threat. *As I recall, a BJ had all their focus. *Remember "Wag
the Dog"?
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...esstional.reac....
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/25/wag-the-dog/
So you believe that Clinton was actually trying to do something other
than divert attention?
Why didn't he finish the job?
Why hasn't GWB? *bin Laden is *still* missing.

yukity, yukity, yuk, that's sooooo 2003...Get with it, the mission
changes, like any war...

Translation: Bush blew it, but we don't want to discuss that part of it
anymore.

You mean, because we did not win yet? You should do a little reading
on the history, and meaning of war before you come to the table
sounding so silly. First off, in war, there are usually two or more
sides. Each side tries to win, sometimes the other side moves, or
changes tactics. Niether side wants to lose, so they fight back...
Anyway, you should read up on it, facinating really...

wrote:
On Mar 13, 5:13 pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 13, 5:03 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:47:01 -0500, John H. wrote:
You might want to consider, Republicans' were rather slow to come around
to the threat. As I recall, a BJ had all their focus. Remember "Wag
the Dog"?
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...esstional.reac...
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/25/wag-the-dog/
So you believe that Clinton was actually trying to do something other
than divert attention?
Why didn't he finish the job?
Why hasn't GWB? bin Laden is *still* missing.
yukity, yukity, yuk, that's sooooo 2003...Get with it, the mission
changes, like any war...
Translation: Bush blew it, but we don't want to discuss that part of it
anymore.

You mean, because we did not win yet? You should do a little reading
on the history, and meaning of war before you come to the table
sounding so silly. First off, in war, there are usually two or more
sides. Each side tries to win, sometimes the other side moves, or
changes tactics. Niether side wants to lose, so they fight back...
Anyway, you should read up on it, facinating really...


Win *yet*? You don't really think we are going to put down the
Islamists, do you.

HK wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 13, 5:13 pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 13, 5:03 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:47:01 -0500, John H. wrote:
You might want to consider, Republicans' were rather slow to come
around
to the threat. As I recall, a BJ had all their focus. Remember
"Wag
the Dog"?
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...esstional.reac...

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/25/wag-the-dog/
So you believe that Clinton was actually trying to do something other
than divert attention?
Why didn't he finish the job?
Why hasn't GWB? bin Laden is *still* missing.
yukity, yukity, yuk, that's sooooo 2003...Get with it, the mission
changes, like any war...
Translation: Bush blew it, but we don't want to discuss that part of it
anymore.

You mean, because we did not win yet? You should do a little reading
on the history, and meaning of war before you come to the table
sounding so silly. First off, in war, there are usually two or more
sides. Each side tries to win, sometimes the other side moves, or
changes tactics. Niether side wants to lose, so they fight back...
Anyway, you should read up on it, facinating really...


Win *yet*? You don't really think we are going to put down the
Islamists, do you.

How do we settle this tiff? Do we do as your side, the "progressives",
advocates and roll over and let ourselves get walked on or do we stand
up to the tyranny that Islam is and fight it at ever turn?

"HK" wrote in message
...




Win *yet*? You don't really think we are going to put down the Islamists,
do you.


The ones that have sworn to Allah to kill you, me, our wives, kids,
families, neighborhoods? Those?

You betcha.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...



Win *yet*? You don't really think we are going to put down the Islamists,
do you.


The ones that have sworn to Allah to kill you, me, our wives, kids,
families, neighborhoods? Those?

You betcha.

Eisboch



Yeah, how? They're in 50 different countries. It is not going to happen
via military action.

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...



Win *yet*? You don't really think we are going to put down the
Islamists, do you.


The ones that have sworn to Allah to kill you, me, our wives, kids,
families, neighborhoods? Those?

You betcha.

Eisboch

Yeah, how? They're in 50 different countries. It is not going to happen
via military action.

No, not completely, but the military will bear the primary responsibility to
address physical threats. You have to remember. The US military is going
through a slow, painful transformation and it's going to take more time to
fully develop new tactics, capabilities and means of fighting this type of
war. Progress is being made, but the transition from a Cold War tactical
capability to fighting small groups of widely spread terrorists will take
more time. That's why our efforts in Iraq and elsewhere seem like an
overkill or over reaction for the threat sometimes.

Meanwhile, I have a few dead tree stumps on my property also.

Eisboch

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...



Win *yet*? You don't really think we are going to put down the
Islamists, do you.


The ones that have sworn to Allah to kill you, me, our wives, kids,
families, neighborhoods? Those?

You betcha.

Eisboch

Yeah, how? They're in 50 different countries. It is not going to happen
via military action.
Negotiation. That's the ticket. Right Harry?

wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...



Win *yet*? You don't really think we are going to put down the
Islamists, do you.


The ones that have sworn to Allah to kill you, me, our wives, kids,
families, neighborhoods? Those?

You betcha.

Eisboch

Yeah, how? They're in 50 different countries. It is not going to
happen via military action.
Negotiation. That's the ticket. Right Harry?


What's your plan, Florida Jim? Never ending military action, sacrificing
the sons and daughters of other Americans?

HK wrote:
wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...



Win *yet*? You don't really think we are going to put down the
Islamists, do you.


The ones that have sworn to Allah to kill you, me, our wives, kids,
families, neighborhoods? Those?

You betcha.

Eisboch

Yeah, how? They're in 50 different countries. It is not going to
happen via military action.
Negotiation. That's the ticket. Right Harry?


What's your plan, Florida Jim? Never ending military action, sacrificing
the sons and daughters of other Americans?

Peace is the period between the last war and the next war.

Islam has been fighting this current war for 1,000 years now.

"HK" wrote in message
...
wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...



Win *yet*? You don't really think we are going to put down the
Islamists, do you.


The ones that have sworn to Allah to kill you, me, our wives, kids,
families, neighborhoods? Those?

You betcha.

Eisboch

Yeah, how? They're in 50 different countries. It is not going to happen
via military action.
Negotiation. That's the ticket. Right Harry?


What's your plan, Florida Jim? Never ending military action, sacrificing
the sons and daughters of other Americans?

My plan is to test Harry's notion that you can negotiate with terrorists.
Any volunteers? Harry!------------- Harry! You there Harry? Damn. He
ran away again.