Big Kahunas

In article ink.net, Tom
Fleischman writes:


In article , Wdtabor
wrote:

To use pre-emption, you must be capable of a decisive blow. Should N. Korea
launch its 3 nukes at us tomorrow, (assuming they have them and the
delivery
capability), they would sting us, but we would then dump such nuclear fire
on
them that Godzilla's would be popping up as far away as the Aleutians.

On the other hand, we could, if that little gargoyle succeeding in really
frightening us, pre-emptively take them out.

Jesus, you sound like your mouth is watering at the thought of using
nuclear weapons. You can't seriously be advocating nuclear holocaust,
can you? Man, you are a nightmare. You remind me of the character Gen.
Buck Turgitsen in "Dr. Strangelove":

"I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but it would be no
more than 20-30 million killed, tops".

You are scary, dude! You really creep me out.


Good.

That is the whole point of deterence.

If we are to live at peace, we must make sure the monsters of the world clearly
understand we have the ability AND the resolve to utterly destroy them if they
threaten us.

We cannot create a world where we sit and sing kumbaya and the monsters turn
into good guys. There will always be monsters wherever the good guys do
nothing. So the best we can do is to kill a few monsters now and then to bring
clarity to the minds of the others.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

In article MbcBb.29223$ZE1.17885@fed1read04, "R. Hubbell"
writes:


There is really no way for us to stop them from launching successful
attacks on
civilians if they are willing to die doing it. In the long run we can
prevail,

Sure there is, you're uninformed if you think otherwise. Our intelligence
gathering is downplayed quite often but don't believe it. We know what's
going on in most all corners of the globe.


I am not slighting the success of the intelligence folks at preventing follow
ups attacks to 9/11/01, they have done remarkably well, but there is no way to
prevent a handful of fanatics willing to die from shooting up a mall in Peoria
or Kansas City.

We can never be invulnerable to those sorts of attacks short of making this
coutry a virtual prison.

but in the short term they can launch at least a few more large scale
attacks,
and I expect them to do so when it will be most likely to influence our
politics in their favor.


Who's "they" that you keep mentioning by the way? Are you talking about
Osama
Bin Laden? He's a cripple and I hear he is on a dialysis machine. Or do
you mean the Saudi's? Who ever "they" are I believe you're getting lousy
information.


Only in the movies do the bad guys lay down their arms and go back to being
farmers when their leader goes down. There are still many Islamofascists out
there to take up their cause.

SNIP

As I replied to someone else, the PUBLIC statements of a number of the Dems
have promised them a turnover of Iraq to the UN, which is the equivalent of
surrender.


The democrats have promised something to who?


To everyone, that they will turn Iraq over to the UN, which is the same thing
as turning it back over to the Baathists or the radical Shia.

SNIP

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

In article , Frank writes:


To use pre-emption, you must be capable of a decisive blow. Should N.
Korea launch its 3 nukes at us tomorrow, (assuming they have them and the
delivery capability), they would sting us, but we would then dump such
nuclear fire on them that Godzilla's would be popping up as far away as
the Aleutians.

Wow. 3 nukes would "sting" us? That seems like an awfully cavalier attitude.
And after we nuked 'em we could just go about our business as if nothing
happened?


Comparatively speaking, it would be a sting. And their options are limited,
they could either go for military targets hoping to dampen our responce, or
civilian targets to create the most casualties, but they just don't have enough
to cover all bases.

And we damned well better not let them get enough.

On the other hand, we could, if that little gargoyle succeeding in really
frightening us, pre-emptively take them out.


And so we learn no lessons from the past. It's just business as usual
whereby we are either killing people actively or sowing the seeds for the
next generation to be killed.

I want us to be looking for ways to make things better and avoid both of
your scenarios. And I believe we have the potential to do so.


I also want to avoid either course, but I believe the way to do that is to make
it crystal clear that attacking us is suicide and making us really nervous is
dangerous and foolish.


SNIP Anti capitalist rant

That he cannot see the difference is why I find Gandhi, and other
pacisifists, contemptible.

Anyone that can describe Gandhi as contemptible is....

What Gandhi stood for and what the above statememt means is that the use
of force will not "win the war". His legacy is that non-violent protest
can work and is indeed very effective because it creates so much sympathy
for the cause and exposes so much of the true nature of the opponent. The
Palestinians would do well to take a lesson from him (and other examples).


His methods worked only because he faced a civilized enemy that cared
about world opinion. Had he faced an enemy with Britain's power led by
Stalin or Pol Pot, he would be remembered as an idealistic fool who got
his people exterminated.

Perhaps so, but what he did was show it _could_ work, and at great risk to
himself. Certainly nothing to hold in comtempt. And the lessons have been
used elsewhere. Romania comes to mind, certainly Ceacesceu (sp?) wasn't
much interested in world opinion.


Romania lost it's protector when the Eastern Block fell apart. Without that
shift in power, protests would have been put down by slaughter, as was the
tradition there. Aside from which, there was considerable violence in that
change of government, it was just sufficeintly decisive and sudden that
casualties were reduced.

Aside from which, non-violent protest in the face of totalitarian states has
sledom produced results. Think of the Chinese student who stood in front of
that tank. It made a great picture, but he was clubbed to death shortly
afterward and the rest of the non-violent protesters driven off or slaughtered.

This is part of my point. In today's world of instant communication Stalin,
Pol Pot, Saddam should have a much harder time concealing this sort of
thing from the world. Part of America's offense in the "war on terror"
should be to actively promote free access (as in beer AND speech) to the
internet all over the world and particularly poor areas. We should become
champions of free speech for everyone around the world, not just here at
home.


Saddam killed 300,000 while being inspected by the UN.

SNIP

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

In article jQbBb.29221$ZE1.11595@fed1read04, "R. Hubbell"
writes:


Let's just cut to the chase the only reason we are involved in the
middle east is because "the american way of life is not negotiable"*


On our soil? No, it is not. We do not need to impose our way of life on
others,
but we are fully justified in defending attacks on our way of life from
abroad
and in pre-emptively addressing threats to our country.


Well we are certainly imposing our way of life on others both directly and
indirectly. Do you understand what our consumption is doing to this
planet?


Providing gainful employment to millions in third world countries who would
otherwise starve to death along with their children.




"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless,
whether the mad destruction is brought under the name of totalitarianism
or the holy name of liberty and democracy?" Mahatma Gandhi



That he cannot see the difference is why I find Gandhi, and other
pacisifists,
contemptible.

The difference he fails to see is the world left to the survivors.

And what world would that be that remains?


So long as we do not allow the monsters to obtain nuclear weapons, the world
will do just fine. If, on the other hand, we weaken in our resolve and let
every tin pot dictator to get nukes, either by making their own or buying them
from North Korea, then things could get really messy.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Geoffrey Barnes wrote:


"Frank" wrote in message
...
Perhaps so, but what he did was show it _could_ work, and at great risk
to himself. Certainly nothing to hold in comtempt. And the lessons have
been used elsewhere. Romania comes to mind, certainly Ceacesceu (sp?)
wasn't much interested in world opinion.

Did you see what they did to Ceacesceu and his wife? That wasn't exactly
Ghandi-esque, and it certainly doesn't qualify as "non-violent".

I did see it and it certainly was not "non-violent". As despicable as he was
I still wouldn't condone it. But his regime was toppled by non-violent
protest and that is what we're talking about.

This is part of my point. In today's world of instant communication
Stalin,
Pol Pot, Saddam should have a much harder time concealing this sort of
thing from the world.

But Saddam was able to conceal this exact sort of thing from the world.
Thousands upon thousands of people were rounded up and executed after the
1991 war. Journalists were everywhere, and some of them even reported (or
at least tried to report) what was going on. The news was ignored by the
rest of the world.

Shame on anyone, anywhere for ignoring any such atrocities.

I said it badly but I'm talking about going forward. Get the internet into
the hands of the people. While there are certainly fine journalists out
there, the news organizations that we rely on for delivery are failing
miserably and can no longer be trusted to fulfil their role.

It's also a way for us to demonstrate to the world that we really mean it
when we talk about free speech. We in America know open dialog is crucial
to democracy so exporting it can only help us in the long run.

--
Frank....H

C J Campbell wrote:

snip

The Europeans have not changed their tune since the sixteenth century.
They have always regarded Americans as rustics and buffoons and themselves
as the epitome of tolerance and culture. This, from a continent that is
barely able to feed itself, is unwilling or unable to defend itself, and
where the height of fashion is American western wear and where American
music reigns supreme.

I wonder for how much longer this will be true. During the month I was in
Germany and France this year I saw signs of a growing movement to boycott
American goods.

And to bring this actually on topic....The big news on the Monday after the
Paris Air Show was that an order for (approx) 30 airliners had gone to Air
Bus because of the lack of American presence. A week later a German airline
decided to go with Dornier instead of Boeing also. So in two weeks we lost
close to 40 aircraft sales. How much was due to anti-American sentiment is
perhaps debatable, but it was a huge blow to our economy and it's a trend
that must not be ignored.


Europeans have given rise to a rapid succession of tyrants that culminated
in the 20th century with nearly the complete annihilation of the human
race.

If it's one thing history shows us it's that there is always a ready supply
of tyrants waiting for an opportunity. We as Americans tend to think of
ourselves as being exempt from that because our system is geared to keep it
out, but our history is not exacly un-blemished.

snip

--
Frank....H

In article , Frank writes:

But Saddam was able to conceal this exact sort of thing from the world.
Thousands upon thousands of people were rounded up and executed after the
1991 war. Journalists were everywhere, and some of them even reported (or
at least tried to report) what was going on. The news was ignored by the
rest of the world.

Shame on anyone, anywhere for ignoring any such atrocities.


OK, so we don't ignore it. Then what, write a strongly worded letter to "The
Times"?

Or send in troops to take out the monster?

Because monsters like Saddam are not going to stop killing their opponents, and
their relatives and aquaintences, unless they believe that someone will get up
on their hind legs and punish them.

We may not have known the number of people he killed, but we, and the UN, knew
it was in the tens of thousands, and neither the UN, nor his Moslem neighbors
did a damned thing about it until the Cop on the Corner showed up.


I said it badly but I'm talking about going forward. Get the internet into
the hands of the people. While there are certainly fine journalists out
there, the news organizations that we rely on for delivery are failing
miserably and can no longer be trusted to fulfil their role.

I agree that the internet is a great tool for getting inforamtion around the
barriers set up to contain it, but you can't even change my behavior by posting
something critical to usenet, much less the Saddams and Pol Pots of the world.
Sooner or later, you need the presence, or the credible threat, of troops on
the ground to effect that change.

It's also a way for us to demonstrate to the world that we really mean it
when we talk about free speech. We in America know open dialog is crucial
to democracy so exporting it can only help us in the long run.


Well, exporting the rule of law in the form of a representative republic would
be a good thing, but I would not inflict democracy on even our worst enemies.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

On 09 Dec 2003 14:42:26 GMT ackatyu (Wdtabor) wrote:

In article jQbBb.29221$ZE1.11595@fed1read04, "R. Hubbell"
writes:


Let's just cut to the chase the only reason we are involved in the
middle east is because "the american way of life is not negotiable"*


On our soil? No, it is not. We do not need to impose our way of life on
others,
but we are fully justified in defending attacks on our way of life from
abroad
and in pre-emptively addressing threats to our country.


Well we are certainly imposing our way of life on others both directly and
indirectly. Do you understand what our consumption is doing to this
planet?


Providing gainful employment to millions in third world countries who would
otherwise starve to death along with their children.


I doubt a lot of them would call it gainful employment. More like indentured
servants. Not to mention what those companies do to the environment.





"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless,
whether the mad destruction is brought under the name of totalitarianism
or the holy name of liberty and democracy?" Mahatma Gandhi



That he cannot see the difference is why I find Gandhi, and other
pacisifists,
contemptible.

The difference he fails to see is the world left to the survivors.

And what world would that be that remains?


So long as we do not allow the monsters to obtain nuclear weapons, the world


Wakeup call, monsters already have nukes. One nations monster is another's
ally.


will do just fine. If, on the other hand, we weaken in our resolve and let
every tin pot dictator to get nukes, either by making their own or buying them
from North Korea, then things could get really messy.

Things already are messy. Most of the "tin pot dictators" that can produce nukes
have been created directly or indirectly by us.


"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless,
whether the mad destruction is brought under the name of totalitarianism
or the holy name of liberty and democracy?"
Mahatma Gandhi


R. Hubbell


--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

On 09 Dec 2003 14:42:26 GMT ackatyu (Wdtabor) wrote:

In article MbcBb.29223$ZE1.17885@fed1read04, "R. Hubbell"
writes:


There is really no way for us to stop them from launching successful
attacks on
civilians if they are willing to die doing it. In the long run we can
prevail,

Sure there is, you're uninformed if you think otherwise. Our intelligence
gathering is downplayed quite often but don't believe it. We know what's
going on in most all corners of the globe.


I am not slighting the success of the intelligence folks at preventing follow
ups attacks to 9/11/01, they have done remarkably well, but there is no way to
prevent a handful of fanatics willing to die from shooting up a mall in Peoria
or Kansas City.


Or snipers from killing people at random. How about the 40,000 that die every
year from car accidents. Or the 35,000 from the flu. What's the real threat?



We can never be invulnerable to those sorts of attacks short of making this
coutry a virtual prison.

A virtual prison wouldn't work.



but in the short term they can launch at least a few more large scale
attacks,
and I expect them to do so when it will be most likely to influence our
politics in their favor.


Who's "they" that you keep mentioning by the way? Are you talking about
Osama
Bin Laden? He's a cripple and I hear he is on a dialysis machine. Or do
you mean the Saudi's? Who ever "they" are I believe you're getting lousy
information.


Only in the movies do the bad guys lay down their arms and go back to being
farmers when their leader goes down. There are still many Islamofascists out
there to take up their cause.

But you still haven't said who "they" are?


SNIP

As I replied to someone else, the PUBLIC statements of a number of the Dems
have promised them a turnover of Iraq to the UN, which is the equivalent of
surrender.


The democrats have promised something to who?


To everyone, that they will turn Iraq over to the UN, which is the same thing
as turning it back over to the Baathists or the radical Shia.


The UN will get involved, it may take a long time but we're screwed in so deep
now that we will need them to help extricate us from this big mess.


R. Hubbell


SNIP

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

In article EWmBb.29325$ZE1.20603@fed1read04, "R. Hubbell"
writes:


Well we are certainly imposing our way of life on others both directly and
indirectly. Do you understand what our consumption is doing to this
planet?


Providing gainful employment to millions in third world countries who would
otherwise starve to death along with their children.


I doubt a lot of them would call it gainful employment. More like indentured
servants. Not to mention what those companies do to the environment.



How compassionate of you.

After all, it is certainly prefferable that they starve with their children
rather than break solidarity with their union brothers and accept a wage below
what you think suitable.

Don


--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG