Re: OT History in question

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:41:23 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" <nospam@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
> news:Xns98E2E86951A4BFredGarvin@66.250.146.128...[color=green]
>> You wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> It appears we've had to deal with terrorism even in America's infancy.
>>> Can someone briefly explain what 100's of America's sailors were doing
>>> in the Middle East when they became captive during Thomas Jefferson's
>>> presidency? We weren't looking for oil were we?[/color]
>>
>> The difference, of course, is that Jefferson responded to hostilities
>> against the United States and attacked the actual parties responsible.[/color]
>
>
> We should've done the same thing, after 9/11.[/color]


Didn't we? I could have thought for sure we went after Muslims...

What do you want? A good, Old Fashioned war where our side wears green
uniforms and their side wears grey?

Those days are over, jack. You hit them where you can, when you can. You
won't know your enemy until he opens fire on you, or your Hummer is hit by
an IUD, or whatever the hell they are.

Nope...good clean wars where the players take up sides are over. Get used
to it.

And get over it...

"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
news:sGGEh.1595$RN6.977@trndny07...[color=blue]
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:41:23 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" <nospam@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
>> news:Xns98E2E86951A4BFredGarvin@66.250.146.128...[color=darkred]
>>> You wrote:
>>>
>>>> It appears we've had to deal with terrorism even in America's infancy.
>>>> Can someone briefly explain what 100's of America's sailors were doing
>>>> in the Middle East when they became captive during Thomas Jefferson's
>>>> presidency? We weren't looking for oil were we?
>>>
>>> The difference, of course, is that Jefferson responded to hostilities
>>> against the United States and attacked the actual parties responsible.[/color]
>>
>>
>> We should've done the same thing, after 9/11.[/color]
>
> Didn't we? I could have thought for sure we went after Muslims...[/color]

"Muslims" aren't the problem but if we keep saying "Muslims" are the
problem, then "Muslims" WILL become the problem.
[color=blue]
> What do you want? A good, Old Fashioned war where our side wears green
> uniforms and their side wears grey?
>
> Those days are over, jack. You hit them where you can, when you can. You
> won't know your enemy until he opens fire on you, or your Hummer is hit by
> an IUD, or whatever the hell they are.[/color]

Right. And you torture people who are uninvolved and you invade countries
that were uninvolved and you throw people in jail without cause at all...
[color=blue]
> Nope...good clean wars where the players take up sides are over. Get used
> to it.
>
> And get over it...[/color]

There are several wars, one is the terrorist's physical war. They've only
made a few strikes, so far, against us directly. We're lucky. We're lucky
we're surrounded by oceans, we're lucky that the Islamic terrorists who are
the backbone of the terrorists who are out to get us don't assimilate well
in Mexico, we're lucky that the Canadians are cooperative, we're lucky that
American Muslims see more to preserve than they see to destroy, we're lucky
to have the nominal cooperation of Musharraf, we're lucky that many of our
Muslims are not ethnically Arab, the list goes on and on.

There's also a propaganda war, or the War for Hearts And Minds. We can kill
terrorists, sure, but invading other countries who did not attack us is a
huge WHAM setback. Killing people who are not actually terrorists is a huge
WHAM setback. Detaining and torturing people who are not actually
terrorists is a huge WHAM setback. Unnecessarily invading an oil-rich Arab
country that did not attack us and with no good reason and without a clear
timetable for departure is a huge WHAM setback. "Kill Muslims" rhetoric is
a huge WHAM setback. Failing to provide the security necessary for peace
and prosperity in the two Muslim countries we've invaded is a huge WHAM
setback. The President referring to our activities as a "crusade" is a huge
WHAM setback.

The WHAM front is where we wage the battle against the next generation of
terrorists and radicalized Muslims who are already here. If the economy
takes a downturn (and I'd say that Bush economic policies pretty much
guarantee this), minorities with limited expectations can be expected to
consider signing up for the front lines in a war against their own country
(happy people with good prospects don't join The Revolution). And invading
other contries is a huge WHAM hit overseas. Where we might have gotten
cooperation from some before, fear uncertainty and doubt will certainly
limit cooperation from here on out.

Why is it that, even with a $25million reward, we can't find bin Laden?
It's because we don't have enough friends and there's too much fear of
others. If we either pissed off fewer people (for example, by NOT invading
Iraq) or put more reasons in Afghanistan to fear us instead of someone else
(or to protect those who might be fearful), the situation would be improved.

Imagine, if you will, a world without a war in Iraq...

- Saddam is sulking in his palace, defanged and under siege.
- 50K to 75K troops are in Afghanistan, a sustainable level of deployment.
- We are in favor in more foreign capitals (essentially no one opposed our
going after the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan).
- Enough troops are in Afghanistan to suppress the resurgent Taliban.
- Afghanistan is peaceful and on its way to prosperity.
- The Afghanis are grateful for the improvement in their daily lot.
- Other Muslim and Middle Eastern countries look at how good life could be
and start thinking...

If our chief goal is to kill Muslims, make new enemies and ensure a long
future of friction between Arabic and Islamic countries and the West, then
our current foreign policy is excellent.

If our chief goal is to make the world a better place, then our current
foreign policy sucks. Scott "blam blam blam blam" in Florida likes things
the way they are because he's a bloodthirsty moron.

You disappoint me. I expected better from you, Hachi.


PS: An IUD is a birth-control device, typically well under an ounce and
entirely non-explosive. I'm not sure what you mean by referring to a Hummer
hit by an IUD. Is it kinky?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url]

"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
news:sGGEh.1595$RN6.977@trndny07...
You[color=blue]
> won't know your enemy until he opens fire on you, or your Hummer is hit by
> an IUD, or whatever the hell they are.[/color]

I don't think you meant this to be funny, but... splork! ;-P

IED = improvised explosive device, IIRC. An IUD is an intrauterine device -
a method of birth control!

Cathy

I'm very sure Hachi knew the difference between an IUD and an IED.
You Libs need to get over yourselves and understand that WAR means
that you kill the other guy before he kills you, and yes, a lot of
innocent people get hurt in the process when the cowards hide behind
their women and children, and won't come out and fight. If that's the
way it has to be, then so be it.



On Feb 26, 4:36 pm, "DH" <d...@stargate.com> wrote:[color=blue]
> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@AE86.gts> wrote in message
>
> news:sGGEh.1595$RN6.977@trndny07...
>
>
>
>
>[color=green]
> > On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:41:23 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" <nos...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
> >>news:Xns98E2E86951A4BFredGarvin@66.250.146.128...
> >>> You wrote:[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >>>> It appears we've had to deal with terrorism even in America's infancy.
> >>>> Can someone briefly explain what 100's of America's sailors were doing
> >>>> in the Middle East when they became captive during Thomas Jefferson's
> >>>> presidency? We weren't looking for oil were we?[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >>> The difference, of course, is that Jefferson responded to hostilities
> >>> against the United States and attacked the actual parties responsible.[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> We should've done the same thing, after 9/11.[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> > Didn't we? I could have thought for sure we went after Muslims...[/color]
>
> "Muslims" aren't the problem but if we keep saying "Muslims" are the
> problem, then "Muslims" WILL become the problem.
>[color=green]
> > What do you want? A good, Old Fashioned war where our side wears green
> > uniforms and their side wears grey?[/color]
>[color=green]
> > Those days are over, jack. You hit them where you can, when you can. You
> > won't know your enemy until he opens fire on you, or your Hummer is hit by
> > an IUD, or whatever the hell they are.[/color]
>
> Right. And you torture people who are uninvolved and you invade countries
> that were uninvolved and you throw people in jail without cause at all...
>[color=green]
> > Nope...good clean wars where the players take up sides are over. Get used
> > to it.[/color]
>[color=green]
> > And get over it...[/color]
>
> There are several wars, one is the terrorist's physical war. They've only
> made a few strikes, so far, against us directly. We're lucky. We're lucky
> we're surrounded by oceans, we're lucky that the Islamic terrorists who are
> the backbone of the terrorists who are out to get us don't assimilate well
> in Mexico, we're lucky that the Canadians are cooperative, we're lucky that
> American Muslims see more to preserve than they see to destroy, we're lucky
> to have the nominal cooperation of Musharraf, we're lucky that many of our
> Muslims are not ethnically Arab, the list goes on and on.
>
> There's also a propaganda war, or the War for Hearts And Minds. We can kill
> terrorists, sure, but invading other countries who did not attack us is a
> huge WHAM setback. Killing people who are not actually terrorists is a huge
> WHAM setback. Detaining and torturing people who are not actually
> terrorists is a huge WHAM setback. Unnecessarily invading an oil-rich Arab
> country that did not attack us and with no good reason and without a clear
> timetable for departure is a huge WHAM setback. "Kill Muslims" rhetoric is
> a huge WHAM setback. Failing to provide the security necessary for peace
> and prosperity in the two Muslim countries we've invaded is a huge WHAM
> setback. The President referring to our activities as a "crusade" is a huge
> WHAM setback.
>
> The WHAM front is where we wage the battle against the next generation of
> terrorists and radicalized Muslims who are already here. If the economy
> takes a downturn (and I'd say that Bush economic policies pretty much
> guarantee this), minorities with limited expectations can be expected to
> consider signing up for the front lines in a war against their own country
> (happy people with good prospects don't join The Revolution). And invading
> other contries is a huge WHAM hit overseas. Where we might have gotten
> cooperation from some before, fear uncertainty and doubt will certainly
> limit cooperation from here on out.
>
> Why is it that, even with a $25million reward, we can't find bin Laden?
> It's because we don't have enough friends and there's too much fear of
> others. If we either pissed off fewer people (for example, by NOT invading
> Iraq) or put more reasons in Afghanistan to fear us instead of someone else
> (or to protect those who might be fearful), the situation would be improved.
>
> Imagine, if you will, a world without a war in Iraq...
>
> - Saddam is sulking in his palace, defanged and under siege.
> - 50K to 75K troops are in Afghanistan, a sustainable level of deployment.
> - We are in favor in more foreign capitals (essentially no one opposed our
> going after the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan).
> - Enough troops are in Afghanistan to suppress the resurgent Taliban.
> - Afghanistan is peaceful and on its way to prosperity.
> - The Afghanis are grateful for the improvement in their daily lot.
> - Other Muslim and Middle Eastern countries look at how good life could be
> and start thinking...
>
> If our chief goal is to kill Muslims, make new enemies and ensure a long
> future of friction between Arabic and Islamic countries and the West, then
> our current foreign policy is excellent.
>
> If our chief goal is to make the world a better place, then our current
> foreign policy sucks. Scott "blam blam blam blam" in Florida likes things
> the way they are because he's a bloodthirsty moron.
>
> You disappoint me. I expected better from you, Hachi.
>
> PS: An IUD is a birth-control device, typically well under an ounce and
> entirely non-explosive. I'm not sure what you mean by referring to a Hummer
> hit by an IUD. Is it kinky?
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -[/color]

"sharx35" <sharx35@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LuIEh.169$Xi2.15@edtnps89...[color=blue]
>[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Right. And you torture people who are uninvolved and you invade
>> countries that were uninvolved and you throw people in jail without cause
>> at all...[/color]
>
> Well, BOO FUCKING HOO. Here's a tissue. Blow your nose. Dry your eyes and
> GET THE FUK OVER all the boo hooing. The great majority of those in Gitmo
> DESERVE far worse treatment.[/color]


And you know this how? and only "the great majority" are guilty of
terrorism?
How about the ones who aren't? Should they be considered "collateral
damage"?
As long as ONE innocent soul remains at Guantanamo, our government is doing
wrong.

"Mark" <bogusmailmark@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1172527972.845893.35060@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...[color=blue]
> I'm very sure Hachi knew the difference between an IUD and an IED.
> You Libs need to get over yourselves and understand that WAR means
> that you kill the other guy before he kills you, and yes, a lot of
> innocent people get hurt in the process when the cowards hide behind
> their women and children, and won't come out and fight. If that's the
> way it has to be, then so be it.[/color]


I'm not questioning that. Rather, I'm wondering why we haven't attacked al
Qaeda where they have the largest numbers of people, or financial supporters
(and that means two different places, not Iraq).

"DH" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message
news:45e3464f$0$16384$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
[color=blue]
> Imagine, if you will, a world without a war in Iraq...
>
> - Saddam is sulking in his palace, defanged and under siege.
> - 50K to 75K troops are in Afghanistan, a sustainable level of deployment.
> - We are in favor in more foreign capitals (essentially no one opposed our
> going after the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan).
> - Enough troops are in Afghanistan to suppress the resurgent Taliban.
> - Afghanistan is peaceful and on its way to prosperity.
> - The Afghanis are grateful for the improvement in their daily lot.
> - Other Muslim and Middle Eastern countries look at how good life could be
> and start thinking...[/color]

You're making me wistful... truly. If only...
[color=blue]
> If our chief goal is to kill Muslims, make new enemies and ensure a long
> future of friction between Arabic and Islamic countries and the West, then
> our current foreign policy is excellent.
>
> If our chief goal is to make the world a better place, then our current
> foreign policy sucks. Scott "blam blam blam blam" in Florida likes things
> the way they are because he's a bloodthirsty moron.
>
> You disappoint me. I expected better from you, Hachi.
>
>
> PS: An IUD is a birth-control device, typically well under an ounce and
> entirely non-explosive. I'm not sure what you mean by referring to a
> Hummer hit by an IUD. Is it kinky?[/color]

This imagery just cracks me up. If only terrorists could be convinced to
use IUDs instead of IEDs... ping, ping, ping!

Cathy

"mack" <mackerel@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:12u6n27co31sefe@corp.supernews.com...[color=blue]
>
> "sharx35" <sharx35@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:LuIEh.169$Xi2.15@edtnps89...[color=green]
>>[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Right. And you torture people who are uninvolved and you invade
>>> countries that were uninvolved and you throw people in jail without
>>> cause at all...[/color]
>>
>> Well, BOO FUCKING HOO. Here's a tissue. Blow your nose. Dry your eyes and
>> GET THE FUK OVER all the boo hooing. The great majority of those in Gitmo
>> DESERVE far worse treatment.[/color]
>
>
> And you know this how? and only "the great majority" are guilty of
> terrorism?
> How about the ones who aren't? Should they be considered "collateral
> damage"?
> As long as ONE innocent soul remains at Guantanamo, our government is
> doing wrong.
>[/color]

You STUPID FUCKING COCKSUCKER. With thinking like THAT, your country
will NEVER win another war. Guaranteed. Why don't you just go over to the
middle east and join up with your fellow cocksucker terrorists? You are
AIDING AND ABETTING them by drooling your bullshit on the net. Fuck off and
DIE now.

"sharx35" <sharx35@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6YJEh.25$ka5.22@edtnps90...[color=blue]
>
> "mack" <mackerel@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
> news:12u6n27co31sefe@corp.supernews.com...[color=green]
>>
>> "sharx35" <sharx35@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:LuIEh.169$Xi2.15@edtnps89...[color=darkred]
>>>[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>>>> Right. And you torture people who are uninvolved and you invade
>>>> countries that were uninvolved and you throw people in jail without
>>>> cause at all...
>>>
>>> Well, BOO FUCKING HOO. Here's a tissue. Blow your nose. Dry your eyes
>>> and GET THE FUK OVER all the boo hooing. The great majority of those in
>>> Gitmo DESERVE far worse treatment.[/color]
>>
>>
>> And you know this how? and only "the great majority" are guilty of
>> terrorism?
>> How about the ones who aren't? Should they be considered "collateral
>> damage"?
>> As long as ONE innocent soul remains at Guantanamo, our government is
>> doing wrong.
>>[/color]
>
> You STUPID FUCKING COCKSUCKER. With thinking like THAT, your country
> will NEVER win another war. Guaranteed. Why don't you just go over to the
> middle east and join up with your fellow cocksucker terrorists? You are
> AIDING AND ABETTING them by drooling your bullshit on the net. Fuck off
> and DIE now.[/color]


Translation: Canadian troops captured in war time can be held forever, even
after the war's over, for as long as their captors feel like it.

In article <Xns98E3BFD33E60BFredGarvin@66.250.146.128>,
"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" <nospam@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
[color=blue]
> You wrote:
>
>[color=green]
> > Didn't we? I could have thought for sure we went after Muslims...[/color]
>
> Ahem. "We"? How many days have YOU spent in uniform since March '03?
>
> Thought so, lardass.
>[color=green]
> > What do you want? A good, Old Fashioned war where our side wears green
> > uniforms and their side wears grey?[/color]
>
> No, I want our focus to be apprehending Osama bin Laden and his enablers.
> Bin Laden - remember him?[/color]

Maybe OBL is already dead. How would you know that he isn't?

[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > Those days are over, jack. You hit them where you can, when you can.[/color]
>
> Who is "them"? Everybody with a Koran? You'd have had to have killed
> Thomas Jefferson himself in that case.[/color]
--

"dbu," <questionmark@pine.com> wrote in message
news:questionmark-1EE5C7.17573226022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=blue]
> In article <Xns98E3BFD33E60BFredGarvin@66.250.146.128>,
> "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" <nospam@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> You wrote:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>> > Didn't we? I could have thought for sure we went after Muslims...[/color]
>>
>> Ahem. "We"? How many days have YOU spent in uniform since March '03?
>>
>> Thought so, lardass.
>>[color=darkred]
>> > What do you want? A good, Old Fashioned war where our side wears green
>> > uniforms and their side wears grey?[/color]
>>
>> No, I want our focus to be apprehending Osama bin Laden and his enablers.
>> Bin Laden - remember him?[/color]
>
> Maybe OBL is already dead. How would you know that he isn't?[/color]


It doesn't matter whether he's dead or not. His organization is regaining
strength, and not in Iraq. The primary financial and idealogical supporters
of al Qaeda remain untouched, and will remain so until we have a more
creative solution than "Kill something and eat it".

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:51:27 +0000, Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute wrote:
[color=blue]
> You wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>> Didn't we? I could have thought for sure we went after Muslims...[/color]
>
> Ahem. "We"? How many days have YOU spent in uniform since March '03?
>
> Thought so, lardass.[/color]

Yup...at 50 I'm going to go enlist.

[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> What do you want? A good, Old Fashioned war where our side wears green
>> uniforms and their side wears grey?[/color]
>
> No, I want our focus to be apprehending Osama bin Laden and his enablers.
> Bin Laden - remember him?[/color]

Yeah, and I also remember Al Queida, who is taking a pounding in Iraq.

[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> Those days are over, jack. You hit them where you can, when you can.[/color]
>
> Who is "them"? Everybody with a Koran? You'd have had to have killed
> Thomas Jefferson himself in that case.[/color]


So, your suggestion is...turn the other cheek?
THAT sounds like a plan...

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:49:11 -0500, Cathy F. wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
> news:sGGEh.1595$RN6.977@trndny07...
> You[color=green]
>> won't know your enemy until he opens fire on you, or your Hummer is hit
>> by an IUD, or whatever the hell they are.[/color]
>
> I don't think you meant this to be funny, but... splork! ;-P[/color]

Yeah, I did...I know it's IED. Just thought I'd have a little fun...
[color=blue]
>
> IED = improvised explosive device, IIRC. An IUD is an intrauterine device
> - a method of birth control!
>
> Cathy[/color]

"dbu," <questionmark@pine.com> wrote in message
news:questionmark-6CCCC5.18090526022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=blue]
> In article <kwKEh.3653$ya1.1056@news02.roc.ny>,
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "dbu," <questionmark@pine.com> wrote in message
>> news:questionmark-1EE5C7.17573226022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=darkred]
>> > In article <Xns98E3BFD33E60BFredGarvin@66.250.146.128>,
>> > "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" <nospam@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>> >
>> >> You wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Didn't we? I could have thought for sure we went after Muslims...
>> >>
>> >> Ahem. "We"? How many days have YOU spent in uniform since March '03?
>> >>
>> >> Thought so, lardass.
>> >>
>> >> > What do you want? A good, Old Fashioned war where our side wears
>> >> > green
>> >> > uniforms and their side wears grey?
>> >>
>> >> No, I want our focus to be apprehending Osama bin Laden and his
>> >> enablers.
>> >> Bin Laden - remember him?
>> >
>> > Maybe OBL is already dead. How would you know that he isn't?[/color]
>>
>>
>> It doesn't matter whether he's dead or not. His organization is regaining
>> strength, and not in Iraq. The primary financial and idealogical
>> supporters
>> of al Qaeda remain untouched, and will remain so until we have a more
>> creative solution than "Kill something and eat it".[/color]
>
> Pay attention, he said: "No, I want our focus to be apprehending Osama
> bin Laden and his enablers."
>
> I said: "Maybe OBL is already dead. How would you know that he isn't?"
>
> You consistently want to play games joeboy.
>
> You should go walk your dog.[/color]


It doesn't matter whether he's dead, alive, or very ill (another theory).
Thinking about OBL is a waste of energy. We know where his training camps
are sprouting up again, and we know who his supporters are. Hint: They're
very wealthy.

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:36:08 -0600, DH wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
> news:sGGEh.1595$RN6.977@trndny07...[color=green]
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:41:23 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" <nospam@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns98E2E86951A4BFredGarvin@66.250.146.128...
>>>> You wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It appears we've had to deal with terrorism even in America's
>>>>> infancy. Can someone briefly explain what 100's of America's sailors
>>>>> were doing in the Middle East when they became captive during Thomas
>>>>> Jefferson's presidency? We weren't looking for oil were we?
>>>>
>>>> The difference, of course, is that Jefferson responded to hostilities
>>>> against the United States and attacked the actual parties responsible.
>>>
>>>
>>> We should've done the same thing, after 9/11.[/color]
>>
>> Didn't we? I could have thought for sure we went after Muslims...[/color]
>
> "Muslims" aren't the problem but if we keep saying "Muslims" are the
> problem, then "Muslims" WILL become the problem.[/color]

Muslims aren't the problem? Who the hell do you think brought down the WTC
and smashed the Pentagon? Girl Scouts?!?!

There is an OLD saying that goes way back: Know your enemy.

You need to do some research.


[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> What do you want? A good, Old Fashioned war where our side wears green
>> uniforms and their side wears grey?
>>
>> Those days are over, jack. You hit them where you can, when you can. You
>> won't know your enemy until he opens fire on you, or your Hummer is hit
>> by an IUD, or whatever the hell they are.[/color]
>
> Right. And you torture people who are uninvolved and you invade countries
> that were uninvolved and you throw people in jail without cause at all...[/color]

When did that happen? Like I said, you can't tell the players anymore.
This isn't like Nazi Germany where people were taken for false suspicions.
This is worse than Geurilla warfare, and you have to take some chances and
possibly make some mistakes.

Hey, WE didn't start it. Ask the 3,000 people at Ground Zero, esp the kids.

[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> Nope...good clean wars where the players take up sides are over. Get
>> used to it.
>>
>> And get over it...[/color]
>
> There are several wars, one is the terrorist's physical war. They've only
> made a few strikes, so far, against us directly.[/color]

And why do you suppose that is? "Lucky"? Guess again. Information garnered
from Detainees. Listening to Int'l phone calls. Increased security. It was
a LOT more than 'luck'.

[color=blue]
> We're lucky. We're
> lucky we're surrounded by oceans, we're lucky that the Islamic terrorists
> who are the backbone of the terrorists who are out to get us don't
> assimilate well in Mexico, we're lucky that the Canadians are cooperative,
> we're lucky that American Muslims see more to preserve than they see to
> destroy, we're lucky to have the nominal cooperation of Musharraf, we're
> lucky that many of our Muslims are not ethnically Arab, the list goes on
> and on.
>
> There's also a propaganda war, or the War for Hearts And Minds. We can
> kill terrorists, sure, but invading other countries who did not attack us
> is a huge WHAM setback. Killing people who are not actually terrorists is
> a huge WHAM setback. Detaining and torturing people who are not actually
> terrorists is a huge WHAM setback. Unnecessarily invading an oil-rich
> Arab country that did not attack us and with no good reason and without a
> clear timetable for departure is a huge WHAM setback. "Kill Muslims"
> rhetoric is a huge WHAM setback. Failing to provide the security
> necessary for peace and prosperity in the two Muslim countries we've
> invaded is a huge WHAM setback. The President referring to our activities
> as a "crusade" is a huge WHAM setback.
>
> The WHAM front is where we wage the battle against the next generation of
> terrorists and radicalized Muslims who are already here. If the economy
> takes a downturn (and I'd say that Bush economic policies pretty much
> guarantee this),[/color]

People have only been saying there's going to be an Economic Downturn for
6 1/2 years. One of these times, you're going to be right, but it will
just be a normal Business Cycle, not anything Bush does.

[color=blue]
> minorities with limited expectations can be expected to
> consider signing up for the front lines in a war against their own country
> (happy people with good prospects don't join The Revolution). And
> invading other contries is a huge WHAM hit overseas. Where we might have
> gotten cooperation from some before, fear uncertainty and doubt will
> certainly limit cooperation from here on out.
>
> Why is it that, even with a $25million reward, we can't find bin Laden?
> It's because we don't have enough friends and there's too much fear of
> others. If we either pissed off fewer people (for example, by NOT
> invading Iraq) or put more reasons in Afghanistan to fear us instead of
> someone else (or to protect those who might be fearful), the situation
> would be improved.
>
> Imagine, if you will, a world without a war in Iraq...
>
> - Saddam is sulking in his palace, defanged and under siege. - 50K to 75K
> troops are in Afghanistan, a sustainable level of deployment. - We are in
> favor in more foreign capitals (essentially no one opposed our going after
> the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan). - Enough troops are in
> Afghanistan to suppress the resurgent Taliban. - Afghanistan is peaceful
> and on its way to prosperity. - The Afghanis are grateful for the
> improvement in their daily lot. - Other Muslim and Middle Eastern
> countries look at how good life could be and start thinking...
>
> If our chief goal is to kill Muslims, make new enemies and ensure a long
> future of friction between Arabic and Islamic countries and the West, then
> our current foreign policy is excellent.
>
> If our chief goal is to make the world a better place, then our current
> foreign policy sucks. Scott "blam blam blam blam" in Florida likes things
> the way they are because he's a bloodthirsty moron.
>
> You disappoint me. I expected better from you, Hachi.[/color]


Sorry, man, but I had to live with Muslims. The Liberals are cool. They
just want to praise Allah and love their brothers. The moderates are OK,
but like most Moderates (myself included) can blow with an Ill Wind
occasionally. The 'Conservative' to Radical Muslims are DANGEROUS!!!
REALLY DANGEROUS!!! DON'T TURN YOUR BACK ON THEM!!!!! They make the Nazis
look like Boy Scouts. If you extened an Olive Branch to them they'd ram it
through your heart.

These are the people we need to take on, wherever and whenever we can. I
hate to sound like a Hawk, and I was perfectly fine ignoring them while
they killed and maimed each other in other parts of the world, but they
came here, unprovoked, and the only thing they will understand is
something much more than a Bloody Nose.

Find yourself a Catholic or Bhuddist from the Phillipines, and ask them
what they think of the Muslims there. Find yourself a Catholice or a
Bhuddist from India and ask them what they think of the Muslims there.
You'll find what I'm saying is the truth.

Sorry, I try to be more open minded, but I think getting them to
concentrate on Iraq was a good idea. Not perhaps the best idea, but it's
working.


[color=blue]
>
>
> PS: An IUD is a birth-control device, typically well under an ounce and
> entirely non-explosive. I'm not sure what you mean by referring to a
> Hummer hit by an IUD. Is it kinky?[/color]


Have you ever had a hummer from someone using an IUD? ;P

I was trying to inject some humor into a morose topic.