On Jun 12, 1:55*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 6/12/2009 9:25 AM spake thus:







On Jun 11, 7:20 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 6/11/2009 11:32 AM spake thus:

On Jun 11, 12:19 pm, RicodJour wrote:

http://costofwar.com/Idon't see that that money was wisely invested
in our future, do you?

I say the money spent on the war in Afghanistan was absolutely the
correct thing to do. *That's $190Bil.

Whoa. Stop right there.

So please, tell us just exactly what we got for our $190 B.

We put all the Al-Qaeda training camps that were in Afghanistan and
through which 50K terrorists passed out of commission. * We took the
Taliban out of power and showed the world that if you sponsor
terrorism, you run the risk of having the US take out your little
empire, blow up your house, and kill your family.

We "took the Taliban out of power"? Really? *Really*?

Yeah, that's right. Last time I checked, Afghanistan has a
functioning government that doesn't include the Taliban. And girls
are going to school again. Funny, aren't you libs supposed to be in
favor of women's rights? And people aren't having their heads cut
off by the govt for alleged religious infractions or being beaten in
public for not dressing the way the Taliban says you must. The Al-
Qaeda training camps, through which 50K terrorists openly passed while
Clinton was in charge, are now gone. Yeah, the Taliban still
controls some parts of Afhanistan and is causing trouble, but they
have paid a heavy price.

On the news tonight, Pakistan civilians are fed up with the Taliban
and are forming militias now to help take them out. Seems they
finally got fed up when the Taliban blew up a few mosques and killed
mullahs that were not pro-Taliban. Also, the folks in the Swat
Valley had enough of them, killing innocent civilians at will and
throwing those little girls out of school. Why is it that libs like
you always try to find anything negative you can about anything the
USA does and focus on that, while remaining silent about the true
evil, like the Taliban. Are they completely finished. No. But WWII
nor any other war of importance wasn't easy or smooth either.

I'm still waiting for an answer. You said the war in Afghanistan
after 9-11 was not justified. I asked, with the WTC still smoking,
3,000 Americans dead, and Al-Qaeda based in Afghanistan under the
protection of the Taliban, exactly what YOU would have done.
Curious how you can be a Monday morning quarterback, critiquing
EVERYTHING possible about what the US has done wrong, yet you can't
answer that simple question.



Sheesh. I'm through discussing this with you, given how little you seem
to know about the actual situation over there, and given what deep
denial you're in that things are going very badly for "the allies" (aka
"the good guys") in Afghanistan.

Yeah, things were also going far worse in Iraq just a year ago, than
they are in Afghanistan. Guys like you and Harry Reid said that
war was lost too and we should withdraw immediately in defeat. I'm
sure you are now very dissappointed that it's been completely turned
around, so you have one less thing to bitch about. Had Bush listened
to guys like you, Al-Qaeda would be using Iraq as a base now and Iraq
would have lost millions of innocent civilians in civil war and
chaos. But you'd be happy to see that happen, just so you'd have
more to bitch about the USA, wouldn't you?

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:04:34 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

[snip]

Exactly. Everybody wants to go to heaven.


Not THAT horrible place.. It's in your imagination anyway.

[snip]
--
"God was invented by man for a reason, that
reason is no longer applicable."

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 6/12/2009 12:04 PM HeyBub spake thus:

The Daring Dufas wrote:

When are Americans going to realize that Islamic Fundamentalists
don't think the same way that Americans perceive as normal. Good
grief, I would love to see a Liberal Democrat approach a Jihadist
and offer him a hug. One more head cut off an Infidel.

Exactly. Everybody wants to go to heaven.

The Christian can gain entry simply by believing within their own
heart. The Muslim must "earn" entry. Entry can be earned by expanding
Islam ("Islam" means "submission), that is, by reducing the number of
folks not under submission.

I challenge you to find where it explicitly says that in the Koran--or
even implies it.

"Blessed are those who slay and are slain for Allah for theirs in return is
the garden of paradise binding on Him in truth" (Qur'an 9:111).

"Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords...And say not of those who
are slain in the way of Allah: 'They are dead,' Nay, they are living, though
ye perceive it not" (Qur'an 2:154)

And a couple of hundred other references.



[written by one who believes that *all* religions are basically
"gutter" religions. None have a monopoly on superstition, pandering
to power, or inciting mobs to murderous action]

Have you ever seen a Mennonite uprising?

You belief system must be a lonely religion. I'll pray to baby Jesus to
watch over you...

Jim Yanik wrote:
Douglas Johnson wrote in
:

The Daring Dufas wrote:

It's a speculation based on what Conservative Religious
Republicans consider to be proper behavior and my observations
of various groups over the years. It's simply a way to get
Conservatives to look at the subject from a different angle.
Sorry. I can read that from what you wrote. It is an interesting
spin. Another spin is from Freakonomics which put together a case that
Roe v. Wade was a major cause the drop in crime in the 90's. Short
version of the argument is that Roe v. Wade allowed a large number of
criminals-to-be to never be born.

-- Doug


Children born into families that WANT them,and properly provide and care
for them make better,more law-abiding citizens.
As a group,children born into single parent "families" have a history of
doing worse. As a group,their chances for success are not as good.


Years ago, I worked with two brothers (no pun) who
were some of the finest young Black men I've known.
Their mother was a nurse and their father worked at
the steel mill. The boys had both parents at home
and a grandmother who would whip their parents if
they let the kids get away with anything. The guy
said "If I mess up, mama wups me when I get home,
then daddy wups me when he gets home and grand mama
will wup all of us if mom and dad don't wup me."
The brothers were never arrested for anything, they
never got into any trouble with the law except for
driving while black and avoided arrest by not running
their mouth at the police. They have grown up to be
the best of citizens with good paying jobs and loads
of respect. They learned personal responsibility at
an early age.

TDD

On 6/12/2009 6:27 PM spake thus:

On Jun 12, 1:55 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:

We "took the Taliban out of power"? Really? *Really*?

Yeah, that's right. Last time I checked, Afghanistan has a
functioning government that doesn't include the Taliban. And girls
are going to school again. Funny, aren't you libs supposed to be in
favor of women's rights? And people aren't having their heads cut
off by the govt for alleged religious infractions or being beaten in
public for not dressing the way the Taliban says you must. The Al-
Qaeda training camps, through which 50K terrorists openly passed while
Clinton was in charge, are now gone. Yeah, the Taliban still
controls some parts of Afhanistan and is causing trouble, but they
have paid a heavy price.

If you want to know what's really going on in Afghanistan, read this:
http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick03302009.html. Patrick Cockburn is
one of the few journalists in the world who has made reporting on events
there his job since before 9/11.

From another article of his:

Even hiring one's own security men is not necessarily a guarantee of
safety. On the same morning that Mr Karzai was leaving Kabul for
Washington, the Taliban attacked a squad of armed security men in
Qalat, a poor dusty city that is the capital of Zabul province in the
far south. Hired to protect road construction workers, they were
slaughtered in a gun battle in which seven of them were killed and
three captured. Asked why he did not look for help from the Afghan
army or police to protect his truck convoys, Mr Bayan looked bemused.
"Get help from the soldiers and policemen?" he replied scornfully.
"Why, they can't even protect themselves, so what can they do for
me?"

The question goes to the heart of the crisis in Afghanistan. It is
not so much that the Taliban is strong and popular, but that the
government is weak, corrupt and dysfunctional. "Security has not
deteriorated because of what the Taliban has done," says Daoud
Sultanzoy, a US-trained commercial pilot who is a highly respected MP
from Ghazni province, south-west of Kabul, "but because people feel
the government is unjust. It is seen as the enemy of the people, and
because there is no constitutional alternative to it, the Taliban
gain." He is angered by a misconception common in the West that
Afghans do not like any form of central government or authority. "It
is not true that we do not like good government," he says, "but for
267 years we have been misruled."


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

On Jun 11, 2:05*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 6/11/2009 8:36 AM spake thus:





On Jun 11, 9:48 am, RicodJour wrote:

What is being "discussed" here is politics.

Yes, and you said

"Your kid has a roof over his head, food on the table, is in
reasonable health and has parents that care. *With that in mind, who
gives a rat's ass about the politics?"

Which is incredibly naive. * My obvious point is, ignore politics and
you could wind up like Nazi Germany. * Germany prospered under
Hitler's rule, people had better roofs, more food on the table, and
the trains ran on time. * *So, people didn't much care about his
politics, the morality of it, and look where it got them and the
world.

This oft-repeated piece of misinformation needs refuting, again.

Like the common saying that "Mussolini made the trains run on time",
it's simply not true. Hitler *did* make (some of the) German people feel
better about themselves, and erased some of the shame they felt from
their last ignominious defeat (in WWI and its aftermath), but Germany
was not the relative paradise you describe by any means.

--



Read what I posted. I never said it was a paradise. Only that the
Germans prospered, had more food, and better roofs over their heads
under Hitler.

German unemployment was 30% when Hitler came to power. By the late
1930's they were close to FULL employment. Their economy recovered
faster under Hitler from the Great Depression than any other country,
including the USA. That went a long way to luring them into not
giving a rat's ass about politics and what else Hitler was doing.

So, please stop trying to re-write history again.

On Jun 13, 2:50*am, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 6/12/2009 6:27 PM spake thus:

On Jun 12, 1:55 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:

We "took the Taliban out of power"? Really? *Really*?

Yeah, that's right. * Last time I checked, Afghanistan has a
functioning government that doesn't include the Taliban. * And girls
are going to school again. * Funny, aren't you libs supposed to be in
favor of women's rights? * And people aren't having their heads cut
off by the govt for alleged religious infractions or being beaten in
public for not dressing the way the Taliban says you must. * The Al-
Qaeda training camps, through which 50K terrorists openly passed while
Clinton was in charge, are now gone. * Yeah, the Taliban still
controls some parts of Afhanistan and is causing trouble, but they
have paid a heavy price.

If you want to know what's really going on in Afghanistan, read this:http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick03302009.html. Patrick Cockburn is
one of the few journalists in the world who has made reporting on events
there his job since before 9/11.

*From another article of his:

* *Even hiring one's own security men is not necessarily a guarantee of
* *safety. On the same morning that Mr Karzai was leaving Kabul for
* *Washington, the Taliban attacked a squad of armed security men in
* *Qalat, a poor dusty city that is the capital of Zabul province in the
* *far south. Hired to protect road construction workers, they were
* *slaughtered in a gun battle in which seven of them were killed and
* *three captured. Asked why he did not look for help from the Afghan
* *army or police to protect his truck convoys, Mr Bayan looked bemused.
* *"Get help from the soldiers and policemen?" he replied scornfully.
* *"Why, they can't even protect themselves, so what can they do for
* *me?"

* *The question goes to the heart of the crisis in Afghanistan. It is
* *not so much that the Taliban is strong and popular, but that the
* *government is weak, corrupt and dysfunctional. "Security has not
* *deteriorated because of what the Taliban has done," says Daoud
* *Sultanzoy, a US-trained commercial pilot who is a highly respected MP
* *from Ghazni province, south-west of Kabul, "but because people feel
* *the government is unjust. It is seen as the enemy of the people, and
* *because there is no constitutional alternative to it, the Taliban
* *gain." He is angered by a misconception common in the West that
* *Afghans do not like any form of central government or authority. "It
* *is not true that we do not like good government," he says, "but for
* *267 years we have been misruled."

--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism


Yep, and you and Harry Reid and a whole long list of libs said the
same things about Iraq a year ago when you wanted us to leave in
defeat. Funny how guys like you can always find everything negative
to put out about anything the USA is doing, how it's all wrong, doomed
to fail, but never speak out against the true evil in the world. In
fact, you appear most times to side with them or consider the USA to
be just about as evil.

BTW, you said going to war to take out the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in
Afghanistan with 3000 Americans dead and the wreckage of the WTC still
smoking was not justified. This is the third time I'm asking now.
What exactly would YOU have done?

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Let's not forget that Bill Clinton completed parts of R. Reagan's wet
dream of less gubmint, et al. After all, it was Clinton who gave us:

o The end of "welfare as we know it"
o The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which led in part to the
current economic crisis
o The removal of the Delaney Clause, which regulated allowable
pesticide levels in food (something Monsanto and other chemical
producers had been lusting after for years)
o Telecommunications "reforms" that turned over control of major
telecomm networks largely to commercial interests

There's more, if anyone's willing to dig a little.

Just as it was a Democrat, Steve Peace, who unleashed the monster of
energy deregulation in California which led to the rise of Enron (with
the blessing of Democratic governor Gray Davis--good riddance!).

Right. And it was Nixon who opened up relations with China.

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Do you really think Hamid Karzai's government "runs" Afghanistan?
Really?
Do you think he even dares venture outside Kabul without a massive
armed escort? Do you think his "power" extends even to Kabul's city
limits? Do you know the difference between Kandahar and Kabul?


I don't think your tests are dispositive. Allow me to re-phrase your
comments for comparison:

"Do you really think Barak Obama's government "runs" America? ["Ten thousand
clerks run Russia..."]

"Do you think he even dares venture outside Washington without a massive
armed escort? Do you think his "power" extends even to Washington's city
limits? ..."

HeyBub wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote:
Do you really think Hamid Karzai's government "runs" Afghanistan?
Really?
Do you think he even dares venture outside Kabul without a massive
armed escort? Do you think his "power" extends even to Kabul's city
limits? Do you know the difference between Kandahar and Kabul?


I don't think your tests are dispositive. Allow me to re-phrase your
comments for comparison:

"Do you really think Barak Obama's government "runs" America? ["Ten thousand
clerks run Russia..."]

"Do you think he even dares venture outside Washington without a massive
armed escort? Do you think his "power" extends even to Washington's city
limits? ..."



If BeeHO is so wonderful and so well loved, what's
with all the armed royal protection? Why would any
sane or crazy person want to harm The Messiah? If
BeeHO is approached by a gaggle of AK47 toting
terrorists, can't he just hold of his hands and stop
them in their tracks and with a simple touch on their
foreheads, turn them into cuddly little puppies?

TDD

wrote:

BTW, you said going to war to take out the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in
Afghanistan with 3000 Americans dead and the wreckage of the WTC still
smoking was not justified. This is the third time I'm asking now.
What exactly would YOU have done?

Personally, I think concentrating on the task at hand - nailing Osama bin
Laden - would have been a good idea instead of diluting that effort with
Iraq. Wait, "diluting" is too weak..."abandoning" is more accurate.

Bush had a chance to be an honest-to-gawd hero. He blew it.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

On 6/13/2009 12:21 PM dadiOH spake thus:

wrote:

BTW, you said going to war to take out the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in
Afghanistan with 3000 Americans dead and the wreckage of the WTC
still smoking was not justified. This is the third time I'm asking
now. What exactly would YOU have done?

Personally, I think concentrating on the task at hand - nailing Osama
bin Laden - would have been a good idea instead of diluting that
effort with Iraq. Wait, "diluting" is too weak..."abandoning" is more
accurate.

Bush had a chance to be an honest-to-gawd hero. He blew it.

That's why I refer to him as Osama bin Forgotten.


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

dadiOH wrote:
wrote:

BTW, you said going to war to take out the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in
Afghanistan with 3000 Americans dead and the wreckage of the WTC
still smoking was not justified. This is the third time I'm asking
now. What exactly would YOU have done?

Personally, I think concentrating on the task at hand - nailing Osama
bin Laden - would have been a good idea instead of diluting that
effort with Iraq. Wait, "diluting" is too weak..."abandoning" is
more accurate.
Bush had a chance to be an honest-to-gawd hero. He blew it.

It was NEVER the goal of the Bush administration to capture or kill Osama
ben Laden.

The single goal of the administration was to prevent another terrorist
attack on the United States or U.S. interests abroad. To do this, strategies
were developed to disrupt or remove terrorist access to financing, training,
communication, safe harbors, recruitment, equipment, and travel.

These strategies have proven successful.

In the decade leading up to 9-11, we experienced about one or two attacks
per year on U.S. interests: the 1992 WTC attack, the U.S.S. Cole, embassy
bombings, ambassadorial kidnappings, etc. Nothing since 9-11.

This is not to say that the capture of OBL - or his death - would not have
been met with glee and a discreet "huzzah" or two, but, past the first week
after 9-11, killing OBL was not a goal of the Bush administration. In fact,
even if it were shown that OBL was dead, the efforts put in place would not
be scaled back.

The difference between the Bush administration doctrine and your inclination
can be found in the lessons of history.

In the past, seldom has the elimination of an enemy leader proved an end to
a conflict. Perhaps killing Hitler would have ended WW2, but our
assassination of Yamamoto had no particular effect against the Japanese.

wrote:

I did read it correctly. The mistake I made was in the first
sentence of my reply, where I should have said "How can you say there
is a need to wait?" Which I stand by. The kook statement made
was:

"Well Jim even the MOST patriotic American would have to agree the
last 8 years were the most disastrous for the USA in history!"

That is very different than evaluating Bush or any other president and
where they rank in history. I agree that usually takes decades. But
the last 8 years were clearly NOT the worst in US history and anyone
with any sense of history and balance knows that today.

OK. I think we are pretty much agreed. Even the most pessimistic view of the
last 8 years does not get it near the list of worst periods in US history. It
probably doesn't even compete with ca. 1970. 50,000 dead in a nasty war. Losing
that war. 10% inflation. A President forced out of office. Stock market in
the tank. It was a good time for me personally, but kind of a rough time for
the country.

-- Doug
-- Doug

HeyBub wrote:
dadiOH wrote:
wrote:

BTW, you said going to war to take out the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in
Afghanistan with 3000 Americans dead and the wreckage of the WTC
still smoking was not justified. This is the third time I'm asking
now. What exactly would YOU have done?

Personally, I think concentrating on the task at hand - nailing Osama
bin Laden - would have been a good idea instead of diluting that
effort with Iraq. Wait, "diluting" is too weak..."abandoning" is
more accurate.
Bush had a chance to be an honest-to-gawd hero. He blew it.

It was NEVER the goal of the Bush administration to capture or kill
Osama ben Laden.

I wasn't a White House confidant but if true then he blew it even worse.
______________

The single goal of the administration was to prevent another terrorist
attack on the United States or U.S. interests abroad. To do this,
strategies were developed to disrupt or remove terrorist access to
financing, training, communication, safe harbors, recruitment,
equipment, and travel.
These strategies have proven successful.

Do you seriously think that they would be if anyone really tried? I don't.
_________________

In the decade leading up to 9-11, we experienced about one or two
attacks per year on U.S. interests: the 1992 WTC attack, the U.S.S.
Cole, embassy bombings, ambassadorial kidnappings, etc. Nothing since
9-11.
This is not to say that the capture of OBL - or his death - would not
have been met with glee and a discreet "huzzah" or two, but, past the
first week after 9-11, killing OBL was not a goal of the Bush
administration.

As I said, he blew it.
________________

The difference between the Bush administration doctrine and your
inclination can be found in the lessons of history.

In the past, seldom has the elimination of an enemy leader proved an
end to a conflict. Perhaps killing Hitler would have ended WW2,

Well, the Junker generals sure tried.
______________

our assassination of Yamamoto had no particular effect against the
Japanese.

I wouldn't exactly call shooting down his plane an assassination but that is
neither here nor there; killing an admiral (or general) isn't likely to
cause mass despair. Hirohito, maybe...

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

Douglas Johnson wrote in
:

wrote:

I did read it correctly. The mistake I made was in the first
sentence of my reply, where I should have said "How can you say there
is a need to wait?" Which I stand by. The kook statement made
was:

"Well Jim even the MOST patriotic American would have to agree the
last 8 years were the most disastrous for the USA in history!"

That is very different than evaluating Bush or any other president and
where they rank in history. I agree that usually takes decades. But
the last 8 years were clearly NOT the worst in US history and anyone
with any sense of history and balance knows that today.

OK. I think we are pretty much agreed. Even the most pessimistic
view of the last 8 years does not get it near the list of worst
periods in US history. It probably doesn't even compete with ca.
1970. 50,000 dead in a nasty war. Losing that war.

We did NOT "lose" the Vietnam War,we GAVE UP.

Even the NVN acknowledge we had won militarily,but gave up politically.
And that was after fighting with one arm tied behind our backs.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On 13 Jun 2009 22:46:20 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

We did NOT "lose" the Vietnam War,we GAVE UP.

I recall this was a "military conflict" and NOT a declared war. We did
not declare War on an existing war between their north and south.

Jim Yanik wrote:

We did NOT "lose" the Vietnam War,we GAVE UP.

Giving up usually leads to losing. I will never forget the pictures of the
helicopters lifting off the embassy roof. Or the helicopters being pushed off
the carrier decks to make room for more inbound. That's losing.

Viet Nam is controlled by the other side. Saigon is called Ho Che Min City.
That's losing.

Yeah, we beat them militarily. We won the battles, they won the war.

-- Doug

Oren wrote:

On 13 Jun 2009 22:46:20 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

We did NOT "lose" the Vietnam War,we GAVE UP.

I recall this was a "military conflict" and NOT a declared war. We did
not declare War on an existing war between their north and south.

It was not a war in the same sense that Iraq is not a war. In neither case did
Congress declare war. Congress authorized Viet Nam with the Tonkin Gulf
Resolution and Iraq with the 2002 Use of Force Resolution.

They both look like wars to me. There may some lawyer somewhere that finds that
hair-split useful, but I doubt anyone else does. The last time Congress
actually declared war was June 5,1942 against Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania.

-- Doug

Jim Yanik wrote:

OK. I think we are pretty much agreed. Even the most pessimistic
view of the last 8 years does not get it near the list of worst
periods in US history. It probably doesn't even compete with ca.
1970. 50,000 dead in a nasty war. Losing that war.

We did NOT "lose" the Vietnam War,we GAVE UP.

Even the NVN acknowledge we had won militarily,but gave up
politically. And that was after fighting with one arm tied behind our
backs.

Not exactly. We signed a peace treaty with North Vietnam (for which Henry
Kissinger won a Nobel Prize).

Then we left.

A year after the last American troops exited Viet Nam, the North Vietnamese
overwhelmed the South and entered Saigon.

dadiOH wrote:

The single goal of the administration was to prevent another
terrorist attack on the United States or U.S. interests abroad. To
do this, strategies were developed to disrupt or remove terrorist
access to financing, training, communication, safe harbors,
recruitment, equipment, and travel.
These strategies have proven successful.

Do you seriously think that they would be if anyone really tried? I
don't. _________________


Heh! Sorry if the facts don't fit your narrative.

Here's twenty off the top of my head:

December 2001, Richard Reid: British citizen attempted to ignite shoe bomb
on flight from Paris to Miami.

May 2002, Jose Padilla: American citizen accused of seeking
radioactive-laced "dirty bomb" to use in an attack against Amrica. Padilla
was convicted of conspiracy in August, 2007.

September 2002, Lackawanna Six: American citizens of Yemeni origin convicted
of supporting Al Qaeda after attending jihadist camp in Pakistan. Five of
six were from Lackawanna, N.Y.

May 2003, Iyman Faris: American citizen charged with plotting to use
blowtorches to collapse the Brooklyn Bridge.

June 2003, Virginia Jihad Network: Eleven men from Alexandria, Va., trained
for jihad against American soldiers, convicted of violating the Neutrality
Act, conspiracy.

August 2004, Dhiren Barot: Indian-born leader of terror cell plotted
bombings on financial centers.

August 2004, James Elshafay and Shahawar Matin Siraj: Sought to plant bomb
at New York's Penn Station during the Republican National Convention.

August 2004, Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain: Plotted to assassinate a
Pakistani diplomat on American soil.

June 2005, Father and son Umer Hayat and Hamid Hayat: Son convicted of
attending terrorist training camp in Pakistan; father convicted of customs
violation.

August 2005, Kevin James, Levar Haley Washington, Gregory Vernon Patterson
and Hammad Riaz Samana: Los Angeles homegrown terrorists who plotted to
attack National Guard, LAX, two synagogues and Israeli consulate.

December 2005, Michael Reynolds: Plotted to blow up natural gas refinery in
Wyoming, the Transcontinental Pipeline, and a refinery in New Jersey.
Reynolds was sentenced to 30 years in prison.

February 2006, Mohammad Zaki Amawi, Marwan Othman El-Hindi and Zand Wassim
Mazloum: Accused of providing material support to terrorists, making bombs
for use in Iraq.

April 2006, Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee: Cased and
videotaped the Capitol and World Bank for a terrorist organization.

June 2006, Narseal Batiste, Patrick Abraham, Stanley Grant Phanor, Naudimar
Herrera, Burson Augustin, Lyglenson Lemorin, and Rotschild Augstine: Accused
of plotting to blow up the Sears Tower.

July 2006, Assem Hammoud: Accused of plotting to bomb New York City train
tunnels.

August 2006, Liquid Explosives Plot: Thwarted plot to explode ten airliners
over the United States.

March 2007, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: Mastermind of Sept. 11 and author of
numerous plots confessed in court in March 2007 to planning to destroy
skyscrapers in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. Mohammedalso plotted to
assassinate Pope John Paul II and former President Bill Clinton.

May 2007, Fort Dix Plot: Six men accused of plotting to attack Fort Dix Army
base in New Jersey. The plan included attacking and killing soldiers using
assault rifles and grenades.

June 2007, JFK Plot: Four men are accused of plotting to blow up fuel
arteries that run through residential neighborhoods at JFK Airport in New
York.

September 2007, German authorities disrupt a terrorist cell that was
planning attacks on military installations and facilities used by Americans
in Germany. The Germans arrested three suspected members of the Islamic
Jihad Union, a group that has links to Al Qaeda and supports Al Qaeda's
global jihadist agenda.

HeyBub wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:
OK. I think we are pretty much agreed. Even the most pessimistic
view of the last 8 years does not get it near the list of worst
periods in US history. It probably doesn't even compete with ca.
1970. 50,000 dead in a nasty war. Losing that war.
We did NOT "lose" the Vietnam War,we GAVE UP.

Even the NVN acknowledge we had won militarily,but gave up
politically. And that was after fighting with one arm tied behind our
backs.

Not exactly. We signed a peace treaty with North Vietnam (for which Henry
Kissinger won a Nobel Prize).

Then we left.

A year after the last American troops exited Viet Nam, the North Vietnamese
overwhelmed the South and entered Saigon.



Defeating a country is easy. Keeping a country is hard.
He who attacks must vanquish. He who is attacked must simply survive.

Any enemy that places a low value on life, or the quality of life for
their peasants, is awful hard to permanently defeat. All they have to do
is lay low and wait, until you get bored and go home. It may take a
generation or three, but the invaders usually leave.

Biggest mistake US made in SEA was not buying off Ho for a few paltry
million in 1945, out of fear of ****ing off DeGaulle. Ho came hat in
hand asking for help as the war wound down, and Truman sent him away. Ho
even based the constitution for his putative country on the US one. (Not
saying he would have followed it, mind you. But he was making a strong
show at being a nice guy.) Buying people off, via noble aid or outright
bribes, is almost always cheaper and easier than invading and killing them.
--
aem sends...

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 01:10:21 GMT, aemeijers wrote:

Buying people off, via noble aid or outright
bribes, is almost always cheaper and easier than invading and killing them.

Should we have paid Pol Pot to call of his Khmer Rouge in Cambodia?

When does it stop, instead of killing them?

Oren wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 01:10:21 GMT, aemeijers wrote:

Buying people off, via noble aid or outright
bribes, is almost always cheaper and easier than invading and killing them.

Should we have paid Pol Pot to call of his Khmer Rouge in Cambodia?

When does it stop, instead of killing them?

Ya got a point- it doesn't work too well with crazy people. Like the
current leaders in North Korea or Iran- the civilized world has dangled
all sorts of aid in front of them, but they ain't biting.

But that doesn't mean the PTB shouldn't try it, before loading troops on
a plane. Crooks, you can do business with. Stupid or crazy people, not
so much.

--
aem sends...

On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 18:18:28 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 01:10:21 GMT, aemeijers wrote:

Buying people off, via noble aid or outright
bribes, is almost always cheaper and easier than invading and killing them.

Should we have paid Pol Pot to call of his Khmer Rouge in Cambodia?

When does it stop, instead of killing them?

If we had taken the money spent in Iraq and Afganistan, and used it
all to build houses, schools, and hospitals, and to make life better
for the general populations in any way we could thionk of, we would
have won in both the short term and the long term. There would have
been no new customers for what the terrorists are selling.

We would have put them out of business without firing a shot.

In article ,
ObamaBinLyin wrote:

HeyBub wrote:
ObamaBinLyin wrote:
Obama thinks there are 60 states in the Union. and you voted for him
anyway. now who is the stupid one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

It was 57. In Obama's defense, there ARE 57 venues that held Democratic
primaries.

* The 50 states, of course, plus
* District of Columbia,
* Guam,
* Puerto Rico,
* U.S. Virgin Islands,
* Patagonia,
* British Honduras, and, er...
* Either Rhodesia or Burbank. I forget.


listen to the video. in it he says he's been to 57 states, 1 left to
go and 2, Alaska and Hawaii, that his handlers won't let him go to. so
for you dumocRATs out the 57+1+2=60. anymore questions?

In most of the world the word ³state² means the same thing as the word
³country² means to us in the US. I believe Mr. Obama was using the word
³state² in this context.

Sun Chaser wrote:
In article ,
ObamaBinLyin wrote:

HeyBub wrote:
ObamaBinLyin wrote:
Obama thinks there are 60 states in the Union. and you voted for him
anyway. now who is the stupid one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
It was 57. In Obama's defense, there ARE 57 venues that held Democratic
primaries.

* The 50 states, of course, plus
* District of Columbia,
* Guam,
* Puerto Rico,
* U.S. Virgin Islands,
* Patagonia,
* British Honduras, and, er...
* Either Rhodesia or Burbank. I forget.


listen to the video. in it he says he's been to 57 states, 1 left to
go and 2, Alaska and Hawaii, that his handlers won't let him go to. so
for you dumocRATs out the 57+1+2=60. anymore questions?

In most of the world the word ³state² means the same thing as the word
³country² means to us in the US. I believe Mr. Obama was using the word
³state² in this context.

so now you say Obammy thinks Alaska and Hawaii are countries? man he is
even dumber than GWB!

In article ,
Sun Chaser wrote:

In most of the world the word ³state² means the same thing as the word
³country² means to us in the US. I believe Mr. Obama was using the word
³state² in this context.

So he is just all of a sudden making this shift while still in the US
and talking to US audiences? You are looking real hard for an excuse.

--
"I found what I thought was a REALLY good book,
called _Girl to Grab_. Imagine my surprise when I found
out it was volume 6 of the *Encyclopedia Britanica*!"
-Martin Mull

"HeyBub" wrote:

Right. Only Congress has the right to "declare" war. But the president has
the unfettered right to "wage" war.

The president's right to wage war is fettered by Congress's willingness to pay
for it. As a practical matter, that is not much of a fetter. Once troops are
in harm's way, it is almost impossible for Congress to not "support our troops",
even if the best way to support them is to take them out of harm's way.
-- Doug

Jim Yanik wrote:

BTW,enemy combatants do not get Geneva protections,nor ordinary civil
criminal treatment.For GOOD reason.

The 4th Geneva Convention defines the protections that must be given to ALL
persons that come into the hands of a signatory to the convention.

Even POWs are HELD until the war is over,without charges or trials.
Ununiformed enemy combatants CAN be executed at any time.

The 3rd Geneva convention defines the term "prisoner of war" and the protections
that must be provided to same. A uniform is NOT required.

We did it in WW2,1000's of German soldiers in US uniforms;lined up and
shot.

Do you have a cite for this? I assume you are talking about the Battle of the
Bulge. There weren't 1,000's of German soldiers. Only 44 men were sent behind
the Allied lines in US Uniform and all but 8 returned.

HOWEVER,the gas crisis was in 1973. I went through it.
And what did JC and the DemocRATs do? they restricted DOMESTIC oil
production,resulting in MORE dependence on foreign oil.

So did I. If JC is Jimmy Carter, he was Governor of Georgia in 1973 and didn't
have much to do with oil production.

These leftists like to ignore parts of history they don't like.

So do the rightists.

-- Doug

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 08:42:37 -0400, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 07:21:04 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:
-snip-
If we had taken the money spent in Iraq and Afganistan, and used it
all to build houses, schools, and hospitals, and to make life better
for the general populations in any way we could thionk of, we would
have won in both the short term and the long term. There would have
been no new customers for what the terrorists are selling.

We would have put them out of business without firing a shot.

As I recall, some schools we built in Afghanistan were burnt to the ground
by the Taliban. With the female students inside.

I guess we could keep rebuilding them until the Taliban got tired of burning
them - or the community ran out of students.


While my heart wants to agree with Salty-- my head says Heybub is
right on this one. I saw first hand the futility of trying to
'buy' peace in Vietnam.

'Hearts and minds' is the best option-- but once the shooting starts
'superior firepower' is the only way to win.


I said to use the money we used for shooting. There would not have
been any shooting if thigs were done the way I suggested.

The way terrorists get a foothold and build their numbers is to
promise miserable people that THEY are the saviors who will make
things better.

The way to disarm their sales ability is to make sure the general
population has their basic needs met without the help of the
terrorists.

The masses will follow whom ever does the most to improve their lives.

I agree that you can't buy peace AFTER you have demolished a country.

Douglas Johnson wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote:

Right. Only Congress has the right to "declare" war. But the
president has the unfettered right to "wage" war.

The president's right to wage war is fettered by Congress's
willingness to pay for it. As a practical matter, that is not much
of a fetter. Once troops are in harm's way, it is almost impossible
for Congress to not "support our troops", even if the best way to
support them is to take them out of harm's way. -- Doug

Agreed. Teddy Roosevelt once wanted to send a navy flotilla around the world
to "show the flag." Congress refused to appropriate the money.

Roosevelt said: "I've got enough money to send the fleet HALF-WAY around the
world. Let's see if Congress will pay to get 'em back."

They did.

Douglas Johnson wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:

BTW,enemy combatants do not get Geneva protections,nor ordinary civil
criminal treatment.For GOOD reason.

The 4th Geneva Convention defines the protections that must be given
to ALL persons that come into the hands of a signatory to the
convention.

Not so. The 4th is silent on unlawful enemy combatants.


Even POWs are HELD until the war is over,without charges or trials.
Ununiformed enemy combatants CAN be executed at any time.

The 3rd Geneva convention defines the term "prisoner of war" and the
protections that must be provided to same. A uniform is NOT required.

Not so. The 3rd actually defines "lawful enemy combatant" as possesing the
four following characteristics:

* Appears in uniform or wears a distinctive emblem
* Carries weapons openly
* Adheres to a specific chain of command
* Follows the customary rules of war

Anyone engaged in combat NOT possesing ALL FOUR of the above is NOT a
"lawful enemy combatant" (with some well-defined exceptions such as a
hastily organized militia) and are not entitled to the protections of POW
status.

"Prisoners of War" include captured lawful enemy combatants, fighters hors
de combat, medical personnel, construction workers, supply and factory
workers, and others aiding the war effort.*

The "customary rules of war" allow a belligerant to treat those who are not
"lawful enemy combatants" in any way they see fit. While we may think it
awful that the Germans summarily shot resistance fighters, the Germans were
within their rights to do so. Americans were not much different; our first
captured "unlawful enemy combatant," Major John André, was hanged by order
of George Washington.

--------
*Aside: We had literally hundreds of thousands of German and Italian POWs in
the United States during WWII (there were about 20 POW camps just in Texas).
Many POWs were Americans (think dual citizenship). Not one got access to our
courts.

Some German POWs were not repatriated by Britain until 1948. Some German
POWs were NEVER repatriated by Russia.

HeyBub wrote:
Douglas Johnson wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:

BTW,enemy combatants do not get Geneva protections,nor ordinary civil
criminal treatment.For GOOD reason.
The 4th Geneva Convention defines the protections that must be given
to ALL persons that come into the hands of a signatory to the
convention.

Not so. The 4th is silent on unlawful enemy combatants.

Even POWs are HELD until the war is over,without charges or trials.
Ununiformed enemy combatants CAN be executed at any time.
The 3rd Geneva convention defines the term "prisoner of war" and the
protections that must be provided to same. A uniform is NOT required.

Not so. The 3rd actually defines "lawful enemy combatant" as possesing the
four following characteristics:

* Appears in uniform or wears a distinctive emblem
* Carries weapons openly
* Adheres to a specific chain of command
* Follows the customary rules of war

Anyone engaged in combat NOT possesing ALL FOUR of the above is NOT a
"lawful enemy combatant" (with some well-defined exceptions such as a
hastily organized militia) and are not entitled to the protections of POW
status.

"Prisoners of War" include captured lawful enemy combatants, fighters hors
de combat, medical personnel, construction workers, supply and factory
workers, and others aiding the war effort.*

The "customary rules of war" allow a belligerant to treat those who are not
"lawful enemy combatants" in any way they see fit. While we may think it
awful that the Germans summarily shot resistance fighters, the Germans were
within their rights to do so. Americans were not much different; our first
captured "unlawful enemy combatant," Major John André, was hanged by order
of George Washington.

--------
*Aside: We had literally hundreds of thousands of German and Italian POWs in
the United States during WWII (there were about 20 POW camps just in Texas).
Many POWs were Americans (think dual citizenship). Not one got access to our
courts.

Some German POWs were not repatriated by Britain until 1948. Some German
POWs were NEVER repatriated by Russia.


Well, their basic elements were returned to Mother Earth.

TDD

"HeyBub" wrote:

Douglas Johnson wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:

BTW,enemy combatants do not get Geneva protections,nor ordinary civil
criminal treatment.For GOOD reason.

The 4th Geneva Convention defines the protections that must be given
to ALL persons that come into the hands of a signatory to the
convention.

Not so. The 4th is silent on unlawful enemy combatants.

You and I plowed this ground pretty thoroughly over in rec.woodworking about 3
weeks ago. None of the four conventions use the term "Enemy Combatant" legal or
otherwise.

From the 4th Convention:

"Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment
and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or
occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which
they are not nationals."

As I originally said, the 4th Convention provides protections to ALL persons who
fall into the hands of a signatory to the Convention.

Even POWs are HELD until the war is over,without charges or trials.
Ununiformed enemy combatants CAN be executed at any time.

The 3rd Geneva convention defines the term "prisoner of war" and the
protections that must be provided to same. A uniform is NOT required.

Not so. The 3rd actually defines "lawful enemy combatant" as possesing the
four following characteristics:

* Appears in uniform or wears a distinctive emblem
* Carries weapons openly
* Adheres to a specific chain of command
* Follows the customary rules of war

Anyone engaged in combat NOT possesing ALL FOUR of the above is NOT a
"lawful enemy combatant" (with some well-defined exceptions such as a
hastily organized militia) and are not entitled to the protections of POW
status.


I'll stand by my comment that a uniform is NOT required.. In fact, the term
"uniform" does not appear in any of the six criteria for being a POW.

From the 3rd Geneva Convention that specifically addresses prisoners of war:
Notice that the four items you mention are only contained in part (2). The
soldier does not even have to wear a distinctive emblem. They could be marching
with a flag or sign.

"Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons
belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of
the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members
of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including
those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict
and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is
occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such
organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs
of war.

[...]

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy
spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had
time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms
openly and respect the laws and customs of war. "

Many of the Gitmo residents probably fall under (2) or (6). Notice no uniform
is required under (2), just a "fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a
distance". Perhaps "Taliban Local Chapter 135"?

No identification of any kind is required under (6) or (1), much less a uniform,
although dog tags, ID, or equivalent would probably help prove status under (1).

The "customary rules of war" allow a belligerant to treat those who are not
"lawful enemy combatants" in any way they see fit.

The conventions changed the "customary rules of war" considerably. References
to what happened in WWII are not relevant since the conventions were signed in
1949.

Also from the 4th Convention:

"To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and
in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons
[...]

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous
judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial
guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

So if you are going to shoot them, you've got to, at least, give them a drumhead
court martial.

-- Doug

On 6/10/2009 3:53 PM David Nebenzahl spake thus:

Apologies if you've already heard this one:

[snip joke]

Hey, now that this thread is nearing saturation, do I get some kind of
prize for starting maybe not *the* longest thread, but a really long
one? Huh?


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 6/10/2009 3:53 PM David Nebenzahl spake thus:

Apologies if you've already heard this one:

[snip joke]

Hey, now that this thread is nearing saturation, do I get some kind of
prize for starting maybe not *the* longest thread, but a really long
one? Huh?


This is it? Really? Phewwww....

David Nebenzahl wrote in news:4a369903$0$2695
:

On 6/10/2009 3:53 PM David Nebenzahl spake thus:

Apologies if you've already heard this one:

[snip joke]

Hey, now that this thread is nearing saturation, do I get some kind of
prize for starting maybe not *the* longest thread, but a really long
one? Huh?



No, not the longest. Too many other goodies like does the ground pin go up
or down on a duplex outlet.

Uh oh. And awaaaaaay we go.

On 6/15/2009 7:20 PM Red Green spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote in news:4a369903$0$2695
:

Hey, now that this thread is nearing saturation, do I get some kind of
prize for starting maybe not *the* longest thread, but a really long
one? Huh?

No, not the longest. Too many other goodies like does the ground pin
go up or down on a duplex outlet.

Uh oh. And awaaaaaay we go.

Sideways.


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 6/15/2009 7:20 PM Red Green spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote in
news:4a369903$0$2695 :

Hey, now that this thread is nearing saturation, do I get some kind
of prize for starting maybe not *the* longest thread, but a really
long one? Huh?

No, not the longest. Too many other goodies like does the ground pin
go up or down on a duplex outlet.

Uh oh. And awaaaaaay we go.

Sideways.

Which side (for the Northern hemisphere)?