OT: Can We Surrender?

"stratrider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In recent weeks, I have read a number of OT politically charged threads surrounding the US's war
on terror, and the war in Iraq. Many I agree with. Some I laugh at. Some I cry at. All of these
threads collectively motivated me to postulate the following: I will start by assuming that the
enemy has some cease fire/ surrender conditions. First, what are they? Second, suppose the US were
to agree to those terms? I know, ridiculous.

Please define "the enemy" in this context, and characterize US strategies to defeat them, either
through force or other means. Please define the specific reasons for current US occupation of Iraq,
and the conditions under which the occupation will cease. Give estimates for US and Iraqi
casualties.

Quoted message said:

But just suppose they would. Is this what is being demanded by the protestors in the UK and
elsewhere?

Iraq has no national aggression toward the US. War has not been declared, though it could be
said to exist.

Interestingly, and very much to the point, Saddam's secular Baathist-led government had done a
brilliant job of ridding Iraq of religiously-motivated terrorism for which the region is widely
known. He did this through a heavy-handed military dictatorship that ruled with an iron fist.
Terrorists were rooted out and killed, on a scale that was manageable. Many credible political
analysts made this point well before the ill-fated invasion of Iraq. They noted that deposing Saddam
would, in all likelihood, serve as an invitation for Islamic terrorist groups to return to Iraq post
haste. You see, forethought and analysis can be useful. Most of what has happened in Iraq was
predicted for this scenario long ago. That Bush Jr. fails to see this should come as no surprise.
He's shockingly ill-equipped to hold such a powerful office. I've known janitors with more political
vision than Bush Jr. (There are a lot of broom-pushing PhD's in the US, thanks to Bush economic
policies.)

Quoted message said:

Would Bin Laden agree to call off the killers if in fact the US would "surrender".

You know for a fact that Bin Laden is directly involved, currently, in directing terrorism toward
the US troops in Iraq? Please cite.

Quoted message said:

I am guessing no. If this war against the US (and the west in general perhaps) is about demanding
money, the demands won't end.

What makes you think the terrorists want money? If they wanted money, why are they killing
themselves? Can't spend it when you're dead, can you?

Quoted message said:

If this war is about religion, then it won't be over until we are all converted or killed. If this
war is about Israel, then it won't be over until Israel is no more.

Cutting off US support for Israel would quell any further anti-US terrorist actions. The US could
rightfully be seen in such a case as voting in favor of Islamic dominance in the region, and might
find powerful economic and military allies as a result. (Remember: Saddam Hussein was on the US
payroll in the not too distant past...)

Quoted message said:

So do I think "surrender" will stop terror? No. Do I think anything will? Maybe not.

Now you're thinking clearly. There is a very good reason that the "war on terror" is a fool's
errand: Terrorism cannot be stopped. Even a thousand swaggering failed Texas daddy's boys could not
change that basic fact. Bush won't die trying; but hundreds, potentially thousands, of US soldiers
will die, and have died.

Quoted message said:

But if I had the will to try and stop it, I would start strategically with Iraq. Not for the oil,
not for the elimination of a dictator, but rather, for the strategic value of the geography. I
believe Saddam was the excuse the US used to establish a military foothold in the Middle East. I
think Europoean leaders know it. It think Middle East Monarchs, Dictators, and Theocrats know it.
And none of them like it!

Ok, Jim, so let's say it is Pax Americana. Are you in favor of colonizing a theopolitical minefield?
Do you think the neocons - seeing globalization as an unstoppable force - want to rule the world
militarily so the US corporate execs can come out on top? (US high-tech and blue collar workers can
always work as domestic servants for the neocon execs, I guess.)

So which is it, Jim? Why are our young men and women coming back in bodybags by the planeload? Are
they fighting a righteous - but doomed - war on terrorism? Are they making the world safe from
Saddam's WMD's? (Oops, I forgot: That was a lie.) Or are they really just there to extend the olive
branch of Pax Americana? Dying soldiers and hundreds of thousands of US, British and global citizens
want to know, and they're not going to stop protesting until they get a straight answer about when
it's going to end. You see, it is the protesters that care about the fate of the dying soldiers, and
who remember the lies upon lies that sent the soldiers to Iraq in the first place. What do you call
it when dozens of powerful government leaders consipire to mislead their people through a propaganda
and disinformation campaign (with lapdog media as co-conspirators), sending hundreds of thousands of
US citizens in uniform to die fighting a WMD threat that doesn't exist?

We went over there - ostensibly - to disarm and depose Saddam Hussein. This, BTW, despite the wisdom
of George Bush Sr., who specifically warned against this very action, for reasons that now must seem
all too obvious to the unwise and shockingly inexperienced Bush Jr. Citizens of the world now demand
that Bush provide a specific exit strategy for this ill-fated and ill-advised war. The Iraqi people
demand and deserve to know when their nation will return to a peaceful state. This is not too much
to ask, even if the estimates are imprecise. Bush and Blair have an obligation to reveal their
intent on some level, not to continue swaggering and making sweeping generalizations that allude to
an essentially endless war against an ill-defined enemy with undefined objectives.

-=Barry=-

The occupation of Iraq has little or nothing to do with terrorism. The people striking at U.S.
forces now are ex-Saddam loyalists and disaffected locals. They aren't Islamic fundamentalists, just
like the Viet Cong weren't Communists. It's just a huge misdirection of U.S. resources, human and
financial, serving an agenda that's never been openly or honestly articulated.

[email hidden] (stratrider) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

In recent weeks, I have read a number of OT politically charged threads surrounding the US's war
on terror, and the war in Iraq. Many I agree with. Some I laugh at. Some I cry at. All of these
threads collectively motivated me to postulate the following: I will start by assuming that the
enemy has some cease fire/ surrender conditions. First, what are they? Second, suppose the US were
to agree to those terms? I know, ridiculous. But just suppose they would. Is this what is being
demanded by the protesters in the UK and elsewhere? Would Bin Laden agree to call off the killers
if in fact the US would "surrender". I am guessing no. If this war against the US (and the west in
general perhaps) is about demanding money, the demands won't end. If this war is about religion,
then it won't be over until we are all converted or killed. If this war is about Israel, then it
won't be over until Israel is no more. So do I think "surrender" will stop terror? No. Do I think
anything will? Maybe not. But if I had the will to try and stop it, I would start strategically
with Iraq. Not for the oil, not for the elimination of a dictator, but rather, for the strategic
value of the geography. I believe Saddam was the excuse the US used to establish a military
foothold in the Middle East. I think European leaders know it. It think Middle East Monarchs,
Dictators, and Theocrats know it. And none of them like it!

Jim Reilly

Jim, I think you have got it mostly right. We are in Iraq and will be there for a very long time
because it is a strategic area. We need to be there for any number of reasons. But there could never
be a victory in the War on Terrorism if Iraq were to remain as it was under Saddam. The Islamic
terrorists by our standards are insane, and that is why the only way to deal with them is to run
them down and kill them. We are presently at war and will be for some time to come. Let's get used
to it and start thinking like a nation at war. The liberals are defeatist and have no stomach for
the conflict. That is why they are unfit to rule in this country or anywhere else in the world.

The Europeans see our being in Iraq as us becoming like a New Rome in the world. The French
especially do not like the idea of a strong America being the only superpower in the world. They are
resentful and bitter about their own demise as a power. They will forever be spoilers, but that is
all they will ever be because that is all they are capable of. The US needs to act unabashedly like
the super power it is and not be bowing and scraping to the abominable UN like the liberals and
those despicable 9 dwarfs running for the Dem nomination would like us to do. A pox on them all!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

[email hidden] (stratrider) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

In recent weeks, I have read a number of OT politically charged threads surrounding the US's war
on terror, and the war in Iraq. Many I agree with. Some I laugh at. Some I cry at. All of these
threads collectively motivated me to postulate the following: I will start by assuming that the
enemy has some cease fire/ surrender conditions. First, what are they? Second, suppose the US were
to agree to those terms? I know, ridiculous. But just suppose they would. Is this what is being
demanded by the protestors in the UK and elsewhere? Would Bin Laden agree to call off the killers
if in fact the US would "surrender". I am guessing no. If this war against the US (and the west in
general perhaps) is about demanding money, the demands won't end. If this war is about religion,
then it won't be over until we are all converted or killed. If this war is about Israel, then it
won't be over until Israel is no more. So do I think "surrender" will stop terror? No. Do I think
anything will? Maybe not. But if I had the will to try and stop it, I would start strategically
with Iraq. Not for the oil, not for the elimination of a dictator, but rather, for the strategic
value of the geography. I believe Saddam was the excuse the US used to establish a military
foothold in the Middle East. I think Europoean leaders know it. It think Middle East Monarchs,
Dictators, and Theocrats know it. And none of them like it!

Jim Reilly

Jim: I figure you are correct. I hope approx. 15,000 dead Iraqis and 300+ dead US soldiers (and
counting)are worth it! In terms of people killed by bombs, we seem to be leading the way. Our
intentions may be good, but you know what they say about the road to hell. I just don't see any end
in sight to these sporadic bombings. If there's one thing we know about these people, they know how
to hold a grudge. Whatever else we may be doing, we've managed to provide terrorists with plenty of
American targets--and now they are going after other groups, too, which did not before get this kind
of attention--Italians, etc. Didn't Bush II say that the world was already a safer place because
Saddam was out of power? THIS is safer? Huh? Our entrance into Bagdad was NO replay of our march in
Paris during WWII. The pulling down of that statue was a staged farce. Lots of people HATE us there.
Sure, they hated Saddam, too. But WE bombed their cities into rubble and killed thousands--men,
women and children. Regardless of intentions, that kind of damage is going to inflame radicals like
nothing else. I can easily imagine myself as a young Iragi male after his friends/family have been
bombed into ashes or dismembered by a "daisy cutter." I can imagine hating those who had done it so
much that I would do some terrible things. I think we are seeing this scenario played out regularly
these days--fueled, of course, by religious zealots and their crazed leaders.

One thing for sure. IF this is going to work, we'll have to be in Iraq for the long term--like
twenty or thirty years. Do we have the will, the bomb targets, the dollars to hang in there? I
have no idea.

Scott

(stratrider) said:

If this war against the US (and the west in general perhaps) is about demanding money, the
demands won't end. If this war is about religion, then it won't be over until we are all
converted or killed.

You've hit it.

It's not about money; bin Laden alone has enough money to solve the problems of the Arab world.

It's a war against civilization. Surrender is incompatible with survival.

--
We sleep secure in our beds at night because, somewhere in the world, rough men are awake and
willing to do violence to protect us. George Bernard Shaw

stratrider said:

In recent weeks, I have read a number of OT politically charged threads surrounding the US's war
on terror, and the war in Iraq. Many I agree with. Some I laugh at. Some I cry at. All of these
threads collectively motivated me to postulate the following: I will start by assuming that the
enemy has some cease fire/ surrender conditions. First, what are they? Second, suppose the US were
to agree to those terms? I know, ridiculous. But just suppose they would. Is this what is being
demanded by the protestors in the UK and elsewhere? Would Bin Laden agree to call off the killers
if in fact the US would "surrender". I am guessing no....

Fanatics such as Osama bin Laden are not possible to reason with. However, by themselves or with
only a few followers they can do little damage. It is the policies of the US in the Middle East
(supporting corrupt authoritarian governments, ignoring Israeli human rights and international laws
violations, etc.) that lead many to support Al Qaeda and its ilk, and many more to do nothing to
oppose the fanatical elements. [1] If the US policies towards the Middle East changed from those of
exploitation to ones of true support for human rights, the terrorist problem would decrease to where
it could be effectively combated through intelligence sharing and police action.

[1] Even Rumsfeld admitted this privately in the leaked DOD memo.

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth

"Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence. Any man
who has once proclaimed violence as his method is inevitably forced to take the lie as his
principle" - Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Scott said:

... Sure, they hated Saddam, too. But WE bombed their cities into rubble and killed
thousands--men, women and children. Regardless of intentions, that kind of damage is going to
inflame radicals like nothing else. I can easily imagine myself as a young Iragi male after his
friends/family have been bombed into ashes or dismembered by a "daisy cutter." I can imagine
hating those who had done it so much that I would do some terrible things....

You forgot to mention the deliberate demolition of houses and removal of trees from orchards - the
whole Arab world sees this as the US adopting "Sharon" tactics. Then there are the invasions of
homes, including searching and restraining women in the households. This is seen by many Iraqis (and
other Arabs) as an insult that can be rightfully avenged by killing US soldiers.

In the battle for the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people, the US is losing to the Muslim
clerics, resistance fighters and even Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. More and more Iraqis are
viewing anyone cooperating with the US as collaborators who deserve death.

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth

Somewhere somebody must have a little sense, and that's the strong person. The strong person is the
person who can cut off the chain of hate, the chain of evil. And that is the tragedy of hate, that
it doesn't cut it off. It only intensifies the existence of hate and evil in the universe. Somebody
must have religion enough and morality enough to cut it off and inject within the very structure of
the universe that strong and powerful element of love. - Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

[email hidden] (Scott) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

[...]

Quoted message said:

Jim: I figure you are correct. I hope approx. 15,000 dead Iraqis and 300+ dead US soldiers (and
counting)are worth it! In terms of people killed by bombs, we seem to be leading the way. Our
intentions may be good, but you know what they say about the road to hell. I just don't see any
end in sight to these sporadic bombings. If there's one thing we know about these people, they
know how to hold a grudge. Whatever else we may be doing, we've managed to provide terrorists with
plenty of American targets--and now they are going after other groups, too, which did not before
get this kind of attention--Italians, etc. Didn't Bush II say that the world was already a safer
place because Saddam was out of power? THIS is safer? Huh? Our entrance into Bagdad was NO replay
of our march in Paris during WWII. The pulling down of that statue was a staged farce. Lots of
people HATE us there. Sure, they hated Saddam, too. But WE bombed their cities into rubble and
killed thousands--men, women and children. Regardless of intentions, that kind of damage is going
to inflame radicals like nothing else. I can easily imagine myself as a young Iragi male after his
friends/family have been bombed into ashes or dismembered by a "daisy cutter." I can imagine
hating those who had done it so much that I would do some terrible things. I think we are seeing
this scenario played out regularly these days--fueled, of course, by religious zealots and their
crazed leaders.

One thing for sure. IF this is going to work, we'll have to be in Iraq for the long term--like
twenty or thirty years. Do we have the will, the bomb targets, the dollars to hang in there? I
have no idea.

Scott

Your analysis is personalized which is never the correct way to think about things like foreign
relations and war. It does not matter in the slightest what any given individual thinks and feels
about the killing which is part and parcel of all wars. Policy must alway be determined by a
nation's interests and not by the feelings of individuals. I am pleased that the US military has
forbidden the photographing of body bags coming back to this country. A constant viewing of that on
TV does nothing but sentimentalize everything to an absurd extent and play into the hands of
liberals who do not have any stomach for this war.

I do think that we will have to be in Iraq for a long time to come until Syria and Iran get squared
away by one means or another. If it is properly explained to the American people what is at stake in
the Middle East we will have the staying power. The worst disaster that could happen would be if the
liberal Dems would regain the White House and the Congress. It would be a catastrophe!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan said:

... Your analysis is personalized which is never the correct way to think about things like
foreign relations and war. It does not matter in the slightest what any given individual thinks
and feels about the killing which is part and parcel of all wars. Policy must alway be determined
by a nation's interests and not by the feelings of individuals....

So Saddam Hussein having a mosaic of George Herbert Walker Bush's face constructed on a hotel
lobby floor had nothing to do with George Walker Bush's obsession with conquering Iraq and
deposing Hussein?

Quoted message said:

I am pleased that the US military has forbidden the photographing of body bags coming back to this
country....

The new official term is "transfer tube" - the use of the term "body bag" has been discontinued by
the Department of Defense.

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth

The first casualty, when war comes, is truth. - Senator Hiram Johnson

"stratrider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]... I will start by

Quoted message said:

assuming that the enemy has some cease fire/ surrender conditions. First, what are they?

According to bin Laden there are seven conditions America must meet. They are:

1. America must come to Islam. Convert and submit to Islamic law.
2. Stop our oppression in the Middle East.
3. Become a nation of principles and manners.
4. Stop supporting Israel.
5. Abandon our presence in the Middle East
6. End our support to Middle East leaders bin Laden considers corrupt.
7. Deal with the Middle East based on mutual interests and end support for Israel.

Failure to respond to all of these conditions will result to a continued fight with the
Nation of Islam.

Second, suppose the US were to agree to those

Quoted message said:

terms? I know, ridiculous. But just suppose they would. Is this what is being demanded by the
protestors in the UK and elsewhere?

Who knows what the protestors in the UK and elsewhere want? Generally your average protester is a
young liberal out to have a good time. From my youth I can tell you that most of these young people
think protesting is a fun thing to do. Kind of a Liberals Gone Wild thing. If these protesters had a
taste of living under Islamic law they would change their tune - especially the female ones.

The organizers of these protests are the ones with the real agenda. You must find out who they are
to know what they want.

Bottom line - There are no recumbent bikes in the Nation of Islam.

skip

"Rocketman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<JPsvb.203221$275.755595@attbi_s53>...

Quoted message said:

"stratrider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In recent weeks, I have read a number of OT politically charged threads surrounding the US's war
on terror, and the war in Iraq. Many I agree with. Some I laugh at. Some I cry at. All of these
threads collectively motivated me to postulate the following: I will start by assuming that the
enemy has some cease fire/ surrender conditions. First, what are they? Second, suppose the US
were to agree to those terms? I know, ridiculous.

Please define "the enemy" in this context, and characterize US strategies to defeat them, either
through force or other means. Please define the specific reasons for current US occupation of
Iraq, and the conditions under which the occupation will cease. Give estimates for US and Iraqi
casualties.

If you are confused about who the enemy is you are hopeless. We can not educate you here on ARBR.
You will have to do that on your own. But why are you asking such stupid questions? Apparently you
do not have a clue about anything. You have been brainwashed silly by liberal propaganda.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But just suppose they would. Is this what is being demanded by the protestors in the UK and
elsewhere?

Iraq has no national aggression toward the US. War has not been declared, though it could be said
to exist.

You are a numb skull of the first rank. Of course Iraq under Saddam had all kinds of aggression
toward the US. Are you insane?

Quoted message said:

Interestingly, and very much to the point, Saddam's secular Baathist-led government had done a
brilliant job of ridding Iraq of religiously-motivated terrorism for which the region is widely
known. He did this through a heavy-handed military dictatorship that ruled with an iron fist.
Terrorists were rooted out and killed, on a scale that was manageable. Many credible political
analysts made this point well before the ill-fated invasion of Iraq. They noted that deposing
Saddam would, in all likelihood, serve as an invitation for Islamic terrorist groups to return to
Iraq post haste. You see, forethought and analysis can be useful. Most of what has happened in
Iraq was predicted for this scenario long ago.

I think you are making some very good points in this paragraph, but it still can't justify what
Saddam and the Baathists did to all those who disagreed with them. What if Saddam did rid Iraq of
Islamic extremists? Was he any better? Of course not. He was worse. The terrorists that are now in
Iraq are exactly where we want them to be, or would you rather fight them on the streets of New York
and Washington.

Quoted message said:

That Bush Jr. fails to see this should come as no surprise. He's shockingly ill-equipped to hold
such a powerful office. I've known janitors with more political vision than Bush Jr. (There are a
lot of broom-pushing PhD's in the US, thanks to Bush economic policies.)

Yes, yes, Bush and his advisers are all idiots of course. How could it be otherwise to a know
nothing like yourself. You should probably be pushing a broom too Rocketman.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Would Bin Laden agree to call off the killers if in fact the US would "surrender".

You know for a fact that Bin Laden is directly involved, currently, in directing terrorism toward
the US troops in Iraq? Please cite.

Now you have finally proven yourself to be a TOTAL idiot. Congratulations! I admire anyone who is a
total anything.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am guessing no. If this war against the US (and the west in general perhaps) is about
demanding money, the demands won't end.

What makes you think the terrorists want money? If they wanted money, why are they killing
themselves? Can't spend it when you're dead, can you?

It is not about money. See Zippy's post in this thread if you want to know what it is about.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If this war is about religion, then it won't be over until we are all converted or killed. If
this war is about Israel, then it won't be over until Israel is no more.

Cutting off US support for Israel would quell any further anti-US terrorist actions. The US could
rightfully be seen in such a case as voting in favor of Islamic dominance in the region, and might
find powerful economic and military allies as a result. (Remember: Saddam Hussein was on the US
payroll in the not too distant past...)

Another idiotic statement. If Israel never existed everything would be as it is presently. The
liberals love to scape goat Israel for all the problems the West is having with the Arab
Muslim world.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So do I think "surrender" will stop terror? No. Do I think anything will? Maybe not.

Now you're thinking clearly. There is a very good reason that the "war on terror" is a fool's
errand: Terrorism cannot be stopped. Even a thousand swaggering failed Texas daddy's boys could
not change that basic fact. Bush won't die trying; but hundreds, potentially thousands, of US
soldiers will die, and have died.

Before the War on Terrorism is ended we may have to knock off the likes of your kind too. Or better
yet, we shall banish you to live among the Arabs and the Muslims and the Terrorists so that you can
have lots of time to reflect on the glories of another "civilization" since you hate the West so
much. But I am glad that you think only a few thousand Americans will die in the defense of their
country and of civilization and not hundreds of thousands. You are nothing but a "cut and run"
liberal. Be sure to vote for that idiot Dean if you get the chance.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But if I had the will to try and stop it, I would start strategically with Iraq. Not for the
oil, not for the elimination of a dictator, but rather, for the strategic value of the
geography. I believe Saddam was the excuse the US used to establish a military foothold in the
Middle East. I think European leaders know it. It think Middle East Monarchs, Dictators, and
Theocrats know it. And none of them like it!

Ok, Jim, so let's say it is Pax Americana. Are you in favor of colonizing a theopolitical
minefield? Do you think the neocons - seeing globalization as an unstoppable force - want to rule
the world militarily so the US corporate execs can come out on top? (US high-tech and blue collar
workers can always work as domestic servants for the neocon execs, I guess.)

You are not only an idiot, but a nut besides. I can see you are covering all the bases with your
moronic conspiracy notions. You and
Mr. Sherman must be blood brothers.

Quoted message said:

So which is it, Jim? Why are our young men and women coming back in bodybags by the planeload? Are
they fighting a righteous - but doomed - war on terrorism? Are they making the world safe from
Saddam's WMD's? (Oops, I forgot: That was a lie.) Or are they really just there to extend the
olive branch of Pax Americana? Dying soldiers and hundreds of thousands of US, British and global
citizens want to know, and they're not going to stop protesting until they get a straight answer
about when it's going to end. You see, it is the protesters that care about the fate of the dying
soldiers, and who remember the lies upon lies that sent the soldiers to Iraq in the first place.
What do you call it when dozens of powerful government leaders consipire to mislead their people
through a propaganda and disinformation campaign (with lapdog media as co-conspirators), sending
hundreds of thousands of US citizens in uniform to die fighting a WMD threat that doesn't exist?

Rocketman is a sentimentalist. That about says it all.

Quoted message said:

We went over there - ostensibly - to disarm and depose Saddam Hussein. This, BTW, despite the
wisdom of George Bush Sr., who specifically warned against this very action, for reasons that now
must seem all too obvious to the unwise and shockingly inexperienced Bush Jr. Citizens of the
world now demand that Bush provide a specific exit strategy for this ill-fated and ill-advised
war. The Iraqi people demand and deserve to know when their nation will return to a peaceful
state. This is not too much to ask, even if the estimates are imprecise. Bush and Blair have an
obligation to reveal their intent on some level, not to continue swaggering and making sweeping
generalizations that allude to an essentially endless war against an ill-defined enemy with
undefined objectives.

Rocketman wants us to cut and run. Ever the coward's solution to a world of troubles. You might want
to think about emigrating to France. You would feel right at home there. But most Americans are not
cowards like you and will fight to defend their country and their freedom.

The War on Terrorism will be over when all the terrorists are dead along with their despicable
ideology. However, if you had your way we would be at war with terrorism for the next thousand
years. The war will be over when it is over and not before. What is so hard to understand about
that. But cut and run cowards like you want to surrender. Or better yet, leave it all up to the
UN. If Gore were president instead of Bush we would still be dickering with the UN and trying to
accommodate la belle France. Thank God you and your ilk are not running the affairs of this
country anymore.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"jim h" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

The occupation of Iraq has little or nothing to do with terrorism. The people striking at U.S.
forces now are ex-Saddam loyalists and disaffected locals. They aren't Islamic fundamentalists,
just like the Viet Cong weren't Communists. It's just a huge misdirection of U.S. resources, human
and financial, serving an agenda that's never been openly or honestly articulated.

I am assuming everything you are saying above is in jest and that you are poking fun at those of
us who think precisely the opposite. I especially like that part about how there are no Islamic
extremists in Iraq the same way there were no Viet Cong communists in Vietnam. Thanks for the
good laugh!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

skip (who?) said:

According to bin Laden there are seven conditions America must meet. They are:

1. America must come to Islam. Convert and submit to Islamic law.
2. Stop our oppression in the Middle East.
3. Become a nation of principles and manners.
4. Stop supporting Israel.
5. Abandon our presence in the Middle East
6. End our support to Middle East leaders bin Laden considers corrupt.
7. Deal with the Middle East based on mutual interests and end support for Israel.

Failure to respond to all of these conditions will result to a continued fight with the Nation of
Islam....

Louis Farrakhan is the leader of The Nation of Islam, not Osama bin Laden. Please get your
facts straight.

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth

Edward Dolan said:

You are a numb skull of the first rank. Of course Iraq under Saddam had all kinds of aggression
toward the US. Are you insane?...

Mr. Dolan:

Please cite specific instances of Iraqi aggression towards the US under the Hussein regime.

Quoted message said:

The terrorists that are now in Iraq are exactly where we want them to be, or would you rather
fight them on the streets of New York and Washington....

Attacking forces of occupation is considered by both international law and convention to be
legitimate resistance, not terrorism. Those attacking US forces in Iraq are no different than
President Reagan's "Freedom Fighters" in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation. Anyone who has
not been brainwashed by neo-conservative propaganda would recognize this.

Quoted message said:

Yes, yes, Bush and his advisers are all idiots of course....

Now you are making sense, Mr. Dolan.

Quoted message said:

It is not about money. See Zippy's post in this thread if you want to know what it is about....

Presta vs. Schrader?

Quoted message said:

Rocketman wants us to cut and run. Ever the coward's solution to a world of troubles. You might
want to think about emigrating to France. You would feel right at home there. But most Americans
are not cowards like you and will fight to defend their country and their freedom....

Ms. Dolan confuses foolhardiness and bravery.

Quoted message said:

The War on Terrorism will be over when all the terrorists are dead along with their despicable
ideology....

I hope this includes all the governmental and government backed organizations that commit the
majority of terrorist acts. The US could make a start by shutting down the Western Hemisphere
Institute for Security Cooperation (formerly US Army School of the Americas) where many of the worst
abuses of human rights in Central and South America have been trained, and by withdrawing military
aid from countries that violate human rights.

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth

"Violence does, in truth, recoil upon the violent, and the schemer falls into the pit which he digs
for another." - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

skip (who?) said:

According to bin Laden there are seven conditions America must meet.

They

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

are:

1. America must come to Islam. Convert and submit to Islamic law.
2. Stop our oppression in the Middle East.
3. Become a nation of principles and manners.
4. Stop supporting Israel.
5. Abandon our presence in the Middle East
6. End our support to Middle East leaders bin Laden considers corrupt.
7. Deal with the Middle East based on mutual interests and end support

for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Israel.

Failure to respond to all of these conditions will result to a continued fight with the Nation
of Islam....

Louis Farrakhan is the leader of The Nation of Islam, not Osama bin Laden. Please get your facts
straight.

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth

Nation of Islam as in countries united not Farrakhan

"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Edward Dolan said:

You are a numb skull of the first rank. Of course Iraq under Saddam had all kinds of aggression
toward the US. Are you insane?...

Mr. Dolan:

Please cite specific instances of Iraqi aggression towards the US under the Hussein regime.

There were many many surface to air missiles shot at our fighters patrolling for Northern Watch and
Southern Watch throughout the bulk of the last decade. Iraq agreed to be non-agressive, but reneged.
It's amazing that we never lost a fighter during all that time...we have superior EW, but one would
think they would have lucked out eventually.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The terrorists that are now in Iraq are exactly where we want them to be, or would you rather
fight them on the streets of New York and Washington....

Attacking forces of occupation is considered by both international law and convention to be
legitimate resistance, not terrorism. Those attacking US forces in Iraq are no different than
President Reagan's "Freedom Fighters" in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation. Anyone who has
not been brainwashed by neo-conservative propaganda would recognize this.

Can you cite the reference in the Geneva Convention or Hague Convention? You probably could have an
argument if the attacking force abided by the rules of war. But trying to maximize civilian
casualties, taking refuge in religious buildings, not wearing military uniforms, killing
non-combatent reporters (on purpose), etc etc all goes against the Geneva Convention and kind of
takes away from any legal argument supporting calling them anything other than terrorists. But call
them anything you want....most of us know what they really are...brainwashing is not applicable at
all. All one needs is just a tiny bit of common sense (i.e., having the ability to not go out of
your way searching for and buying into every factless conspiracy theory and urban legend that claims
your country is horrible and responsible the world's problems).

Tom Sherman <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... [...]

Quoted message said:

Fanatics such as Osama bin Laden are not possible to reason with. However, by themselves or with
only a few followers they can do little damage. It is the policies of the US in the Middle East
(supporting corrupt authoritarian governments, ignoring Israeli human rights and international
laws violations, etc.) that lead many to support Al Qaeda and its ilk, and many more to do nothing
to oppose the fanatical elements. [1] If the US policies towards the Middle East changed from
those of exploitation to ones of true support for human rights, the terrorist problem would
decrease to where it could be effectively combated through intelligence sharing and police action.

Nonsense, the entire Middle East is a pig sty (except for Israel) and we are cleaning it up. You
apparently have amnesia about the first Gulf War when Saddam made a grab for all the oil in the
Arab Middle East. What did that have to do with Osama? We ought of course to stop supporting
authoritarian governments but we ought to go on supporting Israel until hell freezes over. The
main problem with the Middle East is not our presence there or any of our policies past and
present, but the Arabs themselves who cannot get their houses in order. Your "solutions" are all
dead ends and would do nothing to correct this very basic problem. The Arabs have been a thorn in
the side of the West from time immemorial. Until they get rid of all those kingdoms and thug
governments it will be ever so.

By the way, that is part of what we are doing in Iraq - supporting human rights. A free and
democratic Iraq could be the beginning of the transformation of the entire Middle East. Let us hope
so anyway.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"Zippy the Pinhead" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(stratrider) said:

If this war against the US (and the west in general perhaps) is about demanding money, the
demands won't end. If this war is about religion, then it won't be over until we are all
converted or killed.

You've hit it.

It's not about money; bin Laden alone has enough money to solve the problems of the Arab world.

It's a war against civilization. Surrender is incompatible with survival.

What the h*ll are you babbling about? What do you mean "a war against civilization?" You're either
arrogant or ignorant, I can't tell which. Are you actually attempting to argue that Iraq is not
civilized? LMAO! I hope I'm misinterpreting your post. You can't possibly actually believe that US
survival, as a nation, is at stake, can you? It isn't like there is a massive military force parked
on our soil, demanding our surrender. Please tell me that you're joking, or drunk.

-=B=-

"jim h" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The occupation of Iraq has little or nothing to do with terrorism. The people striking at U.S.
forces now are ex-Saddam loyalists and disaffected locals. They aren't Islamic fundamentalists,
just like the Viet Cong weren't Communists. It's just a huge misdirection of U.S. resources, human
and financial, serving an agenda that's never been openly or honestly articulated.

That's a brilliant summary that every American deserves to be made aware of. This would be a more
peaceful and prosperous nation if everyone understood current events as you do.

-=B=-