Recent Political Change May Positively Affect GA

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:17:27 GMT, "Super Dave"
wrote:

We got into this war with attacks on NY and DC. What is your
evidence that Bush was responsible for those attacks?


No, we got into the Afghanistan war due to the attacks on NY and DC. Iraq
was the result of stupidity on the part of our fearless leaders, and the
stupidity of the populace that supports those leaders.


So, our attack on D-Day was unjustified because Normandy did not bomb
Pearl Harbor?

Bush's big mistake was to not trust the American people with the truth
about this war from the beginning, choosing instead to tout a
simplistic justification for the war, the possibility of Saddam Husein
developing nuclear weapons, instead of laying out the real strategy
and trusting the people to understand.

We are not at war with Iraq or Afghanistan, we are at war with
Islamofascism. This is an asymmetric war, and the primary problem in
this sort of war is to get the enemy to engage on terms under which we
can win.

Their ultimate goal is to unify Islam under a restored Caliphate and
proceed on their god given mission of world domination. A bit
grandiose for a culture that represents 20% of the world's population
but couldn't produce a turbojet engine if their lives depended on it,
but none-the-less, that is where they eventually want to go.

Their short term goal is to unify the Arabian Peninsula and Central
Asia by driving the West out and leaving the Western friendly regimes
like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia open to conquest and future use as
economic weapons of intimidation.

Their strategy is to subject us to an endless sequence of 9/11 and
Madrid type attacks until we acquiesce and stand aside while they take
control of a large part of the world petroleum supply by force.

Simply driving the Taliban out of Afghanistan would do no good. The
leaders would simply relocate to Iran and Iraq and other havens while
their troops simply melted away into the tribal areas of Pakistan
until we left. Quite simply, they could afford to lose Afghanistan for
a decade or so, and they are patient.

So, we had to take the war some place they could not afford to lose.
Iraq filled that bill in both location and population. A capitalist,
secular and self-governing Iraq in the middle of the feudal Islamic
world was intolerable, and its success would have spread to
neighboring countries as the miracle of the rule of law and capitalism
raised the Iraqi standard of living beyond anything Islam has to
offer. They had to come out and fight or their strategy would be
defeated. That is why we went to Iraq, to make them meet us in the
kind of war we can win.

This war has not been well managed. We are simply too civilized to do
what is expected in that part of the world. Al-Sadr and his militia
should have been utterly wiped out at the first instance of resistance
early in the occupation. Likewise, Falujah should have been flattened.
Those would have seemed harsh initally, but in the long run, lives
would have been saved and the new government would have been
stabilized.

Now, if we leave in defeat, they are back on their game plan and we
can expect more 9/11's until we withdraw completely and let them have
Kuwait and SA. I don't think we have the unity now to prevail.

That is the price of underestimating the ability of the American
people to understand the big picture. Had bush laid all this out in
the first place, explained the stakes and the strategy from the
beginning instead of all the lawyer talk about UN resolutions and
other foolishness used to justify an unspoken strategic plan, I
believe the people would have stood by the plan as long as it takes.
No, I am afraid we will withdraw and let them build strength until my
children and grandchildren are forced to choose between Sharia and
nuclear war.

Don

Don Tabor wrote:


So, our attack on D-Day was unjustified because Normandy did not bomb
Pearl Harbor?


Any chance this is supposed to make any sense?

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:26:45 -0700, Newps wrote:

Don Tabor wrote:


So, our attack on D-Day was unjustified because Normandy did not bomb
Pearl Harbor?


Any chance this is supposed to make any sense?

A lot more sense than had we simply bombed the empty ocean where the
Japanese fleet was when it launched the attack, and then stopped.

When fascism attacked us in WW2, we went to Normandy before going
after the Japanese directly because that is where the winning strategy
led us.

We fight the enemy where it is to our advantage to do so, not in some
place of their choosing.

Don

DonSideB

Build a man a fire and you keep him warm for a day,
Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

"DonSideB" wrote in message
...
When fascism attacked us in WW2, we went to Normandy before going
after the Japanese directly because that is where the winning strategy
led us.

Uh, no. Japan attacked the US. The following day, the US declared war on
Japan. Three days later, Japan's ally Germany declared war on the US.

In contrast, Iraq's conduct in the aftermath of 9/11 included neither a
declaration of war on the US, nor an invasion of the US. The strongest link
you appear to be making between Iraq and the 9/11 attackers is that they
share the same religion. They were in fact enemies of one another, not
allies; Saddam Hussein was precisely the sort of secular, US-supported Arab
ruler that al Qaeda despised.

Their ultimate goal is to unify Islam under a restored Caliphate and
proceed on their god given mission of world domination.

Uh, can you attribute that goal to *Iraq*? On what evidence? "Protocols of
the Elders of Islam"?

Likewise, Falujah should have been flattened.

It is trivial to rationalize whatever mass atrocities you'd like to commit
if you allow yourself to simply proclaim, without evidence, what your
targets' motives and plans are.

--Gary

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:26:45 -0700, Newps wrote:


Don Tabor wrote:


So, our attack on D-Day was unjustified because Normandy did not bomb
Pearl Harbor?


Any chance this is supposed to make any sense?

A lot more sense than had we simply bombed the empty ocean where the
Japanese fleet was when it launched the attack, and then stopped.

When fascism attacked us in WW2, we went to Normandy before going
after the Japanese directly because that is where the winning strategy
led us.

We fight the enemy where it is to our advantage to do so, not in some
place of their choosing.

Don

Don Tabor wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:26:45 -0700, Newps wrote:


Don Tabor wrote:


So, our attack on D-Day was unjustified because Normandy did not bomb
Pearl Harbor?


Any chance this is supposed to make any sense?


A lot more sense than had we simply bombed the empty ocean where the
Japanese fleet was when it launched the attack, and then stopped.

When fascism attacked us in WW2, we went to Normandy before going
after the Japanese directly because that is where the winning strategy
led us.

We fight the enemy where it is to our advantage to do so, not in some
place of their choosing.

Normandy is in France. Why would the French bomb Pearl Harbor? By the
way we attacked the Japanese at many locations before doing any serious
damage to the Germans. We agreed with our other Allies to defeat the
Germans first even though Japan was a much more dangerous enemy to us at
the time. The only way the Germans were going to be defeated was to
have the Russians do the lions share of the fighting and dying.

Clear to me. He's saying that Normandy France did not
attack England or the USA, so how could we kill all those
innocent French citizens while claiming to be fighting the
war on socialism, aka NAZI.



"Newps" wrote in message
. ..
|
|
| Don Tabor wrote:
|
|
| So, our attack on D-Day was unjustified because Normandy
did not bomb
| Pearl Harbor?
|
|
| Any chance this is supposed to make any sense?
|

Don Tabor wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:17:27 GMT, "Super Dave"
wrote:

We got into this war with attacks on NY and DC. What is your
evidence that Bush was responsible for those attacks?


No, we got into the Afghanistan war due to the attacks on NY and DC. Iraq
was the result of stupidity on the part of our fearless leaders, and the
stupidity of the populace that supports those leaders.


So, our attack on D-Day was unjustified because Normandy did not bomb
Pearl Harbor?

Bush's big mistake was to not trust the American people with the truth
about this war from the beginning, choosing instead to tout a
simplistic justification for the war, the possibility of Saddam Husein
developing nuclear weapons, instead of laying out the real strategy
and trusting the people to understand.

Or maybe he realized that most people would think this "real strategy" was
even crazier.

We are not at war with Iraq or Afghanistan, we are at war with
Islamofascism. This is an asymmetric war, and the primary problem in
this sort of war is to get the enemy to engage on terms under which we
can win.

British had the same problem. Darn Americans just wouldn't stand up
in a line to get shot at.

Their ultimate goal is to unify Islam under a restored Caliphate and
proceed on their god given mission of world domination. A bit
grandiose for a culture that represents 20% of the world's population
but couldn't produce a turbojet engine if their lives depended on it,
but none-the-less, that is where they eventually want to go.

Won't they have to share the world with the commies?

Their short term goal is to unify the Arabian Peninsula and Central
Asia by driving the West out and leaving the Western friendly regimes
like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia open to conquest and future use as
economic weapons of intimidation.

Did they publish a manifesto? I really only believe in conspiracies that
have a really rousing manifesto.

Their strategy is to subject us to an endless sequence of 9/11 and
Madrid type attacks until we acquiesce and stand aside while they take
control of a large part of the world petroleum supply by force.

Won't they have trouble running the refineries if they can't produce a
turbojet engine?

Simply driving the Taliban out of Afghanistan would do no good. The
leaders would simply relocate to Iran and Iraq and other havens while
their troops simply melted away into the tribal areas of Pakistan
until we left. Quite simply, they could afford to lose Afghanistan for
a decade or so, and they are patient.

This part turned out to be true. Killing lots of people in Afghanistan
didn't seem to help much. Why that means that killing more people in
more places would be better is unclear.

So, we had to take the war some place they could not afford to lose.
Iraq filled that bill in both location and population. A capitalist,
secular and self-governing Iraq in the middle of the feudal Islamic
world was intolerable, and its success would have spread to
neighboring countries as the miracle of the rule of law and capitalism
raised the Iraqi standard of living beyond anything Islam has to
offer. They had to come out and fight or their strategy would be
defeated. That is why we went to Iraq, to make them meet us in the
kind of war we can win.

You really don't see anything wrong with waging war on a country that
was no threat to you at all just so you could gather some jihadis in
one spot so you could blow them up? You don't think our track record
in setting up peaceful puppet governments since WWII makes this rosy
outcome a tad far-fetched?

This war has not been well managed. We are simply too civilized to do
what is expected in that part of the world. Al-Sadr and his militia
should have been utterly wiped out at the first instance of resistance
early in the occupation. Likewise, Falujah should have been flattened.
Those would have seemed harsh initally, but in the long run, lives
would have been saved and the new government would have been
stabilized.

And we would have "won" in Vietnam if we had only bombed them back to
the stone age. Why oh why do they hate us?

Now, if we leave in defeat, they are back on their game plan and we
can expect more 9/11's until we withdraw completely and let them have
Kuwait and SA. I don't think we have the unity now to prevail.

So you're saying that if we leave Kuwait and SA we _won't_ have more
911's? Excellent advice.

That is the price of underestimating the ability of the American
people to understand the big picture. Had bush laid all this out in
the first place, explained the stakes and the strategy from the
beginning instead of all the lawyer talk about UN resolutions and
other foolishness used to justify an unspoken strategic plan, I
believe the people would have stood by the plan as long as it takes.
No, I am afraid we will withdraw and let them build strength until my
children and grandchildren are forced to choose between Sharia and
nuclear war.

Or perhaps we could have debated that war is serious business and he
better think again if he thinks we're going to slaughter innocent lives
because he's got some racist paranoid delusion that all muslims are
out to get us and it's us or them.

Don

--
Don Poitras

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 12:56:14 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Poitras) wrote:

Their ultimate goal is to unify Islam under a restored Caliphate and
proceed on their god given mission of world domination. A bit
grandiose for a culture that represents 20% of the world's population
but couldn't produce a turbojet engine if their lives depended on it,
but none-the-less, that is where they eventually want to go.

Won't they have to share the world with the commies?

Their short term goal is to unify the Arabian Peninsula and Central
Asia by driving the West out and leaving the Western friendly regimes
like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia open to conquest and future use as
economic weapons of intimidation.

Did they publish a manifesto? I really only believe in conspiracies that
have a really rousing manifesto.


Actually, Osma Bin Laden has stated this plan quite clearly on many
occasions.

Iran's President Adbaashcan has said pretty much the same thing,
adding an apocalyptic 12th Iman to the finale.

It's not exactly a secret. They have been very clear about their
intent. Its one of those requirements in the Koran that you announce
your intentions to your enemy before attacking so they have the
opportunity to submit.

The clever ones say it is such an over-the-top manner that you don't
take them seriously and are caught by surprise even though in
retrospect you were clearly warned.

Don


Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

It's not exactly a secret. They have been very clear about their
intent. Its one of those requirements in the Koran that you announce
your intentions to your enemy before attacking so they have the
opportunity to submit.

You're wasting your breath, Don. Those who don't actually read -- and
understand -- what the the enemy says can't possibly be expected to
understand how to beat them.

You're right, though. Within four years we will have pulled out of the
Middle East, tail between our legs, and our children and grand-children
will be left to face a much stronger, nuclear-armed enemy in the
future. Bush blew it, but in ways the Left truly can't appreciate.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"