Dude wrote:
> So, it would seem that it would be wise not to have a war on your own
> soil, and to pay a high cost to avoid it.

That would be valid for a conventional war, as in fighting a country for
control of land. However, we are supposedly fighting "terror' - which is a
concept. Sadly, and ironically, beating the **** out of Iraqis - who
heretofore had *nothing to do* with terrorism - will only add fuel to the
fire. And you can thank the Bushes for that,,,,,

<applause> Very good, John! Someone who understands you can't shoot a
concept!

I would further dare to add that terrorism is NOT something that can be
solved militarily. It must be solved diplomatically simply because there
is an endless supply of willing to die terrorists and you can never
shoot them all!

I would further dare say that what we call their "terrorism" is simply a
tactical approach for them. They cannot defeat the world's most powerful
army in a head-to-head confrontation so they adopt tactics of
hit-and-run....the same tactics that proved so successful in Viet Nam.

Oh and don't forget..."terrorism" is in the eye of the beholder. If you
get your head loped off by a sword or by flying shrapnel from a high
tech missile it makes no appreciable difference to the receiver.

Antonio

John Harlow wrote:
> Dude wrote:
>
>>So, it would seem that it would be wise not to have a war on your own
>>soil, and to pay a high cost to avoid it.
>
>
> That would be valid for a conventional war, as in fighting a country for
> control of land. However, we are supposedly fighting "terror' - which is a
> concept. Sadly, and ironically, beating the **** out of Iraqis - who
> heretofore had *nothing to do* with terrorism - will only add fuel to the
> fire. And you can thank the Bushes for that,,,,,
>
>

> It must be solved diplomatically simply because there
> is an endless supply of willing to die terrorists and you can never
> shoot them all!

I know I shouldn't ask this, but...

Why not?

Hell, if people had thought like you during the 1940s, we'd have never
beaten the Japanese. After all, they had an "endless supply" of kamikaze
pilots (** Note: Necessary aviation content **) willing to die for their
cause, and they were EVERYWHERE in the Pacific.

I guess we should have capitulated at that point, and just let them keep
China and the Philippines, eh? No sense in fighting a concept like that...

It's like George Patton said: "Your duty is not to die for your country.
Your duty is to make the OTHER dumb sumbitch die for HIS country..."
Substitute "religion" or "culture" for "country" -- and you can pretty well
sum up our war on terrorism.

Personally, it's not one I care to lose.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> It must be solved diplomatically simply because there
>> is an endless supply of willing to die terrorists and you can never
>> shoot them all!
>
> I know I shouldn't ask this, but...
>
> Why not?

>
> Hell, if people had thought like you during the 1940s, we'd have never
> beaten the Japanese. After all, they had an "endless supply" of
> kamikaze pilots (** Note: Necessary aviation content **) willing to
> die for their cause, and they were EVERYWHERE in the Pacific.

Because "Japanese kamikazis" are a finite entity as opposed to "people who
hate America" who, for every one you kill, two are created.


> I guess we should have capitulated at that point, and just let them
> keep China and the Philippines, eh? No sense in fighting a concept
> like that...

That's not a concept, that's an invasion. Having trouble with this, I
see...

>
> It's like George Patton said: "Your duty is not to die for your
> country. Your duty is to make the OTHER dumb sumbitch die for HIS
> country..." Substitute "religion" or "culture" for "country" -- and
> you can pretty well sum up our war on terrorism.

It's a vicious circle fed by the obsolete mindset that you can just go kill
people and your problems will be solved. In reality it just creates more.

> Personally, it's not one I care to lose.
But it will never be "won" unless you kill off everyone who doesn't think
exactly the way you do - and what are the odds of that happening? And who
else thought that was an appropriate action?

Look at the "drug war" concept - how long have we been "fighting" that and
how well is it going?

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>It must be solved diplomatically simply because there
>>is an endless supply of willing to die terrorists and you can never
>>shoot them all!
>
> I know I shouldn't ask this, but...
>
> Why not?

Because the "war on terror" is a guerilla war It is not possible to
kill all the terrorists, for the reasons Mr. Harlow says, and also
because killing them can mean unintentionally killing an equivalent
number of good guys in the process.

Jim Rosinski

In article >, jim rosinski >
writes:

>
>Because the "war on terror" is a guerilla war It is not possible to
>kill all the terrorists, for the reasons Mr. Harlow says, and also
>because killing them can mean unintentionally killing an equivalent
>number of good guys in the process.
>

Actually, the way to win a guerilla war is to draw the enemy out onto the field
where you can fight them, rather than allow them to hide among the
non-combatants.

That is what is happening. In return for getting rid of Saddam for them, we are
using Iraq as our battlefield. The Islamofascists cannot allow a free,
capitalist, representative republic to succeed in Iraq. A prosperous,
comparatably wealthy Iraq, with the rule of law, capitalism and free trade, and
individual liberty in the heart of the Islamic world would be envied, and thus
hated, much as Israel is now. So, whatever the cost, they must attempt to
prevent that from happening. That means they have to come out and fight, and as
they do, we can destroy them. I would not invest in property in Fallujah just
now. That trap is almost full and ready to be emptied.

So, like him or not, Bush has some smart folks working for him. Iraq is not
Vietnam, it is what we learned from Vietnam. It will take time and casualties
to do it, but we will win this war following this plan, and we will do it over
there where the monster lives rather than in our own cities.


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

Wdtabor wrote:
> In article >, jim rosinski >
> writes:
>
>
>>Because the "war on terror" is a guerilla war It is not possible to
>>kill all the terrorists, for the reasons Mr. Harlow says, and also
>>because killing them can mean unintentionally killing an equivalent
>>number of good guys in the process.
>>
>
>
> Actually, the way to win a guerilla war is to draw the enemy out onto the field
> where you can fight them, rather than allow them to hide among the
> non-combatants.
>
> That is what is happening. In return for getting rid of Saddam for them, we are
> using Iraq as our battlefield. The Islamofascists cannot allow a free,
> capitalist, representative republic to succeed in Iraq. A prosperous,
> comparatably wealthy Iraq, with the rule of law, capitalism and free trade, and
> individual liberty in the heart of the Islamic world would be envied, and thus
> hated, much as Israel is now. So, whatever the cost, they must attempt to
> prevent that from happening. That means they have to come out and fight, and as
> they do, we can destroy them. I would not invest in property in Fallujah just
> now. That trap is almost full and ready to be emptied.
>
> So, like him or not, Bush has some smart folks working for him. Iraq is not
> Vietnam, it is what we learned from Vietnam. It will take time and casualties
> to do it, but we will win this war following this plan, and we will do it over
> there where the monster lives rather than in our own cities.
>
>

Have you ever heard of Israel or Northern Ireland? The IRA terrorists
have been in Ireland since 1917. How come they just don't wipe them out?
How come the British are cutting their forces by 1/3 in Iraq? And they
currently only have 7000 there compared to our 150,000 !

Arabs don't want a democratic free society. They want a theocracy based
on the Koran and are willing to die to prove it. A democratic society
would go strongly against the grain of the Islamic faith and the Koran
in the eyes of most Arabs.

However, if the aim is to extinguish terrorists and blood thirsty
dictators, why don't we launch an invasion on Saudi Arabia? They are
conducting public beheadings daily and are a known nest of terrorists.

Oh, but I forgot: we can't go to war with the Saudi's because prince
Bandar or "Bandar Bush" as he is referred to amongst the Bush's , is
just too nice a guy to attack.

Bush learned nothing from Viet Nam. We will loose this war because it is
not winnable by war tactics. You cannot kill every arab that hates
democracy!! The Arab nations are grooming and educating the next
generations of terrorists right now to hate us. And when the costs of
war go spiraling out of control and we run with our tail between our
legs (just as we did in Viet Nam) after spending billions we will have
accomplished what? There will still be millions of Muslim's that hate
us. "How do you end that hate?" is the real question. And the answer is
definitely NOT "kill more Arabs".

Landslide...still my prediction. And not because they love Kerry either
but because they fear where Bush is taking this great country of ours.

take care,
Antonio

> However, if the aim is to extinguish terrorists and blood thirsty
> dictators, why don't we launch an invasion on Saudi Arabia? They are
> conducting public beheadings daily and are a known nest of terrorists.

Although I don't think your suggestion is serious, I happen to think that
this would be the next logical step in the War on Terror.

The world would be a much better place without the House of Saud.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article >, dancingstar
> writes:

>
>However, if the aim is to extinguish terrorists and blood thirsty
>dictators, why don't we launch an invasion on Saudi Arabia? They are
>conducting public beheadings daily and are a known nest of terrorists.
>

Google this group for "Location, Location, Location" from a couple of years
back for why Iraq had to come first. Though I did not anticipate the "terrorist
flypaper" effect, the basic geography and strategic principles still apply.

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

> It will take time
> and casualties to do it, but we will win this war following this
> plan, and we will do it over there where the monster lives rather
> than in our own cities.


Alas, Bush doesn't share your optimism...

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/breaking_news/story/227273p-195190c.html

>
>> It will take time
>> and casualties to do it, but we will win this war following this
>> plan, and we will do it over there where the monster lives rather
>> than in our own cities.
>
>
>Alas, Bush doesn't share your optimism...
>
>http://www.nydailynews.com/front/breaking_news/story/227273p-195190c.html
>
>

Meaning there will be no formal surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship.
No VT day to celebrate. No treaty.

It will just fade away as capitalism and the rule of law replaces feudalism and
Sharia.

No, it's not a sure thing, but I haven't seen any viable alternatives offered
by those who criticize Bush and his team other than to sing Kumbaya and hope
the Islamofascists will be content with just killing as a few at a time.

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

>> Alas, Bush doesn't share your optimism...
>>
>> http://www.nydailynews.com/front/breaking_news/story/227273p-195190c.html
>>

>
> It will just fade away as capitalism and the rule of law replaces
> feudalism and Sharia.

A concept will fade away? How? Is everyone going to get a simultaneous
lobotomy or something?

> No, it's not a sure thing, but I haven't seen any viable alternatives
> offered by those who criticize Bush and his team other than to sing
> Kumbaya and hope the Islamofascists will be content with just killing
> as a few at a time.

How about dealing with the middle east at arm's length and quit unfairly
backing Israel?

> How about dealing with the middle east at arm's length and quit unfairly
> backing Israel?

I used to feel exactly that way, John. I just couldn't figure out why we
supported Israel, and didn't give the Palestinians a chance.

But, time has gone on, my world view has evolved, and I have seen how the
"Palestinians" (which, I've come to learn, don't actually exist as a people)
and radical Muslims truly have no interest in peace or democracy (or, for
that matter, our survival), and I've come around to the view that Israel is
truly a tiny democratic lifeboat in a sea of violence and despair.

In fact, without our long-standing support of Israel, I can't imagine what
the Middle East would be like today. I suspect it would probably be one
giant, unified, Islamic republic -- living under the law of Sharia (with all
the horrors that entails) -- and the world would be a much more dangerous
place.

I can only thank our elders, who obviously foresaw this and paid no heed to
the rantings of my youth.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"