Big Kahunas

In article , Martin Hotze
writes:



I was afraid after reading your lsat post, but now I am really scared. ...
But not from the folks in the Arabic world ... I am scared from people with
your mindset.

and:


Hey! How about gasing them? This would be a 'clean' solution. hmm ...
reminds of something .... *methinks* ... well ...


#m


Ahh, already sunk to the level of putting words in my mouth and vague fears of
the boogeyman.

I didn't expect your pretense of 'reason' to collapse so quickly.

Don

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

In article , Frank writes:


Trouble with the preemptive policy is that North Korea could use the same
argument to justify a launch tomorrow. Or India on Pakistan. Or any number
of other conflicts around the world. Each side convinced they are on the
side of good and must defeat evil before it spreads.


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.

The strength of America is more than just the military, we just don't use it
effectivly (if at all).

The "war on terror" as practiced up to now can never be won. I agree with
you though that the solution is to get other countries to realize it is not,
their best interests to harbor terrorists. We disaggree on the methods.
Forcing cooperation at gunpoint only dooms us to be forever the occupiers.


No, once they understand the real balance of the world and take our resolve
seriously, it will not be necessary to occupy anyplace. We only must be in Iraq
now because we allowed ourselves to be seen as lacking in resolve in the past.


No, we need to mobilize some of our other strengths to win this war. We are
the most adept marketers in the world. That, backed up by some honest
humanitarian efforts (and maybe some judicious covert ops) is what will win
the day for us.


I agree that making them capitalist, representative republics will create
lasting peace, but the fascist totalitarian states and feudal theocracies have
be broken first.




"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.

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.



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

Don


If the survivor's legacy is to become dependant on force then they will end
up being no better than those who came before.


They end up alive and free so long as the remain strong.

That is better enough for me.

Don

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

Martin Hotze wrote in message . ..
On 08 Dec 2003 14:19:51 GMT, Wdtabor wrote:


I see, so long as there is a single nutcase or fanatic who emerges here, we
cannot defend ourselves from organized terrorists from abroad.


Hey! How about gasing them? This would be a 'clean' solution. hmm ...
reminds of something .... *methinks* ... well ...


I declare this post to be a technical violation of Godwin's law.
Thread over. You lose, Martin. :-)

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

On 8 Dec 2003 14:09:37 -0800, John Galban wrote:

I declare this post to be a technical violation of Godwin's law.
Thread over. You lose, Martin. :-)

and as it is not good to reply while declared over ...: I'm glad it is over
and take the loss on me. :-)

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

#m

ahh! follow up to poster
--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

Wdtabor wrote:

In article , Frank writes:


Trouble with the preemptive policy is that North Korea could use the same
argument to justify a launch tomorrow. Or India on Pakistan. Or any number
of other conflicts around the world. Each side convinced they are on the
side of good and must defeat evil before it spreads.


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?

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.

The strength of America is more than just the military, we just don't use
it effectivly (if at all).

The "war on terror" as practiced up to now can never be won. I agree with
you though that the solution is to get other countries to realize it is
not,
their best interests to harbor terrorists. We disaggree on the methods.
Forcing cooperation at gunpoint only dooms us to be forever the occupiers.


No, once they understand the real balance of the world and take our
resolve seriously, it will not be necessary to occupy anyplace. We only
must be in Iraq now because we allowed ourselves to be seen as lacking in
resolve in the past.


Partly true, we must be seen as resolute. But to think that just because we
have all the power they will just do as we say is to deny history. Unless
we win they're cooperation we most certainly will have to occupy them,
otherwise another dictator comes along and the process must be repeated.

But just as North Korea is reacting to perceived threats precipitated by
being included in the "axis of evil", then so will other countries become
afraid of us. And that will lead them to take defensive measures. And
sooner or later we'll have to point our gun at them. And so that process
will be repeated.




No, we need to mobilize some of our other strengths to win this war. We
are the most adept marketeers in the world. That, backed up by some honest
humanitarian efforts (and maybe some judicious covert ops) is what will
win the day for us.


I agree that making them capitalist, representative republics will create
lasting peace, but the fascist totalitarian states and feudal theocracies
have be broken first.

It will go a long way but it also takes a sense fairness and protections for
the "little guy" that is often overlooked (especially when that comes in
competition with capitalists). Without that they just end up with another
totalitarian eventually.

Exporting capitalism is fine as long as we export compassion in equal doses.
And we'd better start cleaning up our own house because the "capitalists"
here have just about bought up all of our representatives. We can hardly
expect newly created democracies to grasp the nuances of effective,
successful free government when all we can hold up for a model is full of
corruption.




"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.

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.

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.

Free speech is not just a cornerstone of American life, it is one of the
most effective tools we have to combat terrorism. But it must be truly free
and that's not easy, even for us. We know all too well how much crap you
have to listen to when you let everyone have a say.

For us to wield the tool of free speech effectivly we must practice what we
preach. That means making hard choices and swallowing a few pills we may
not like. Such as reversing the current administrations policies of closing
off information. Such as considering policies of censorship of the internet
in China grounds for sanctions. When we have the courage and the will to
make the sacrifices this involves then we will be on the road to actually
winning a "war on terror".




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

Don


If the survivor's legacy is to become dependant on force then they will
end up being no better than those who came before.


They end up alive and free so long as the remain strong.

That is better enough for me.

Don


I don't want America to settle for 'good enough'. We are a great country
only as long as we strive to be better. We will lose the "war on terror" as
long as we have the attitude that as long as they're not bombing my house
that's good enough.

We should be working towards a day when any use of force on our part is
considered a failure on our part to be smart enough to find another way. It
is no victory for America if all we can say is "We're so powerful you must
all just do as we say."

We are not free if we must keep others down by force. No one is free unless
all are free.

Sorry for the long rant....
--
Frank....H

Jeffrey Voight wrote:

snip

While it's a shame that some of the Iraqi people behave like
preschoolers with machine guns, but that's the way it is. You see
similar behavior in our cities when basketball teams lose.

Jeff...


Thereby making it predictable and something we _could_ be expected to plan
for.

--
Frank....H

Wdtabor wrote:

In article 5_Ozb.422240$HS4.3350892@attbi_s01, "Jay Honeck"
writes:


In your view, what were his REAL motives for ousting Saddam?
--

They're not going to like it, but the real motive was to change the
character of the middle east and make it a less volitile place, while
killing as few people in the process as possible.

The alternative would have been to pascify the place by killing a LOT of
Moslems.

Leaving as it was, and putting up with terrorism forever, as Europe seems
willing to do, was not an acceptable option.


Actually I agree with you. I seems that the best explanation of the "why" is
just as you state.

The problem I have is twofold - The concept of preemption is only workable
if the preemptor is "pure as the driven snow".

And even if the above were true -

They bungled it so badly they've cost us more than we'll ever gain.
--
Frank....H

"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".

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.

On 08 Dec 2003 14:19:51 GMT ackatyu (Wdtabor) wrote:

In article 2YTAb.27636$ZE1.521@fed1read04, "R. Hubbell"
writes:

When the people in the countries who spawn the suicidal zealots understand
that
harboring those who hate and intend violence against civilians is
counterproductive and police their own zealots.


What about countries that spawn serial killers or domestic terrorists?
Have we made sure that no more will be "spawned" right here at home?


I see, so long as there is a single nutcase or fanatic who emerges here, we
cannot defend ourselves from organized terrorists from abroad.


I'm not sure if you do see, I think you're blinded by something but I'm not
sure what it is. I would say Bush and co. are the scariest bunch of zealots
running loose these days. I think it's ironic that Bush and co. have
similar zeal with bringing death.

How about Union Carbide in Bhopal that was 100,000? And look what our
mining companies do to countries around the world. Oil companies ravage
any place they show up. So it's okay with you that our corporations run
around wreaking havoc as long as it's in the name of "progress"?






Several middle eastern countries who formerly sheltered terrorists have
already
come to that conclusion, but there are still a few to go.

Would you feel better about getting attacked by zealots from Afghanistan
if they called them selves the The Holy Taliban Army?

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?



"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?

R. Hubbell


Don

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

On 08 Dec 2003 14:19:50 GMT ackatyu (Wdtabor) wrote:

In article DRTAb.27633$ZE1.17808@fed1read04, "R. Hubbell"
writes:


Sadly, I think we have to expect another attack on our soil, either another
big
one or a number of smaller ones, late next summer.

Why would they wait until then? What have you heard?


That our next presidential election, which is what they hope to influence, is
in November.

Late summer or early fall would be the optimum time to create an appearance of
failure in the War on Terror by killing a large number of American civilians.


That wouldn't portray a failure in the War on Terror it would be a failure to
act on intelligence information. And it wouldn't alter how people voted.



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.

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.






Our enemies have been promised a 'better deal' if Bush is not re-elected
and we
should expect a maximum effort on their part to wage successful attacks in
hopes of influencing the election against him.


Promised a better deal by whom? You are starting to sound like Chicken
Little. Unless you really do have some information and if that's so you
have my apology.


Try reading a newspaper.

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?


An opposition party candidate should never undermine foreign policy in a time
of war by promising a better deal. They could either support the current
administration's policy, promise that if they get elected, they will be an even

You sir are living a world of make believe.


worse opponent (as Reagan did) or they can shut up about the matter, but
offering the enemy what they want if they get elected only invites an attempt
to sway the election by killing our people.

Now we finally get to your stance. If you don't aggree, shut up.


In my mind, failing to understand that basic principle of statemanship, that
dissent on foreign policy stops at the waters edge, which has been a maxim of
US politics as long as we have been a nation, forever disqualifies them for
public office.

The world you paint a picture of won't ever exist there are too many smart,
compassionate people to let it happen. Relax it'll be okay.

"I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, if only because it offers us
the opportunity of self-fulfilling prophecy. "

Arthur C. Clarke



R. Hubbell



Don

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