GAO Report: GA Security Threat

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
Rich, I've been reading military history since I first started reading
some 45 or so years ago and I'll be darned if I can recall reading
much about post WWII battles with soldiers who refused to surrender.
Can you give me a citation or two?

Corky..........

This book may have some information about the Germans who fought on.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...45748?v=glance

Werwolf!: The History of the National Socialist Guerrilla Movement,
1944-1946

Rich S.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
|
| I can't see much of a difference for the world with Saddam missing (he
| isn't, really, by the way). I am now absolutely certain - as most news
| watchers - that Saddam didn't pose nearly the threat that some were led
| to believe. There are no WMD, period.

I take it we've all seen the list of quotes from the Deomcrats that stated
EXPLICITLY that Saddam had them and what a danger they were....right up
until GWB took out after them.

Saddam's own military commanders all believed that Saddam had WMD. They
have
told investigators that they still believe it. Each of them thought the
WMDs
were under the command of some other commander. Maybe Saddam was bluffing,
but it turns out to have been a very dangerous bluff. It still does not
mean
that the US is 'losing' the war.

And defectors have been saying it for several years (those who'd worked in
the development programs).

Saddam had nearly two years or more to ditch the stuff and many willing
accomplices toward that end.

You know, it is funny. Here we have guys like you saying that CIA was too
alarmist about WMD in Iraq, but not alarmist enough about 9/11. You can't
have it both ways. These Senate investigations with their attendant
political grandstanding will end up doing as much or more damage to the
intelligence community as the Church hearings did a generation ago. We
will
be left deaf, dumb, and blind, and have people like you to thank for it.

--
"Democrats who complained that Bush was too slow to act on
doubtful intelligence re 9/11 now profess to be horrified that he
was too quick to act on doubtful intelligence re Iraq. This is not
a serious party." - Mark Steyn: The Spectator

By the way, when the **** are we going to get back in the air and fly our
ultralights.


"Eric Miller" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
Cathleen Berrick, director of Homeland Security and Justice Issues, notes
that 70 general aviation aircraft have been stolen in the last five years,
"indicating a potential weakness that could be exploited by terrorists."

Wow... 70... in 5 years.... that's a whopping 14 per year or OVER one a
month.

Compare that to how many cars, trucks, etc. which are stolen ALL of which
could be filled with explosives and turned into terrorist car bombs!!!!

Idiots.

Classic case of people fearing what they don't understand.

Eric

Rich,

Many Germans and
Japanese fought and killed Allied troops long after the war.


I am German. I am quite well educated in my country's history (I can
point at Iraq on a map, too). Your above statement is total BS.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

C,

Are you suggesting that Saddam is winning the war? Then you have an even
stranger definition of 'winning.'


Read the thread. The OP said: "We have won the war in Iraq". That's a
ridiculous statement.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Ian,

You base this on what experience, training or inspiration?


Well, then we're really glad to have you, since YOUR opinion is the
only one that really counts.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Mark,

There are no WMD, period.

Heh heh heh... I get a kick out of people who trust Saddam more than
GWB.


Uh, and GWB claims to have found them?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

C,

You need to learn to read!

Here we have guys like you saying that CIA was too
alarmist about WMD in Iraq, but not alarmist enough about 9/11.


Didn't say that with one word. Not the first part, not the second. All
I'm saying is that Bush and his administration lied. And that's both
pretty much accepted and admitted.

Didn't say the US was losing the war, either. I just said that to claim
the war was won is ridiculous.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Blueskies,

What war? Did we declare war?


;-) Ok, how about "conflict"? Or "police action"? Oh wait, those have
been used before. "War on Terrorism", that's the ticket. Sounds much
like the "war on drugs", and everybody knows how great that worked out.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Martin Hotze wrote:

"John T" wrote:

Not to mention learning what's happening in Iraq. "Good news is no news."

so we might have to discuss wether the news we (in Europe) get are more
objective than yours. I don't know what you get, but if I only believe 50% of
what I see here (in European news) than I would be ashamed of beeing an American
claiming to live in the western free world.

There's "objective" and there's "biased". If you watch Al Jezeera
(sp?) you come away with the same conclusion. Either way, even the
most US-centric news agencies end up spending all their time talking
about the the occasional attack on coalition forces, and almost none
on all the progress that's being made in Iraq and Afghanistan
(remember Afghanistan?) which is a MUCH bigger story in reality.

Mark Hickey