wrote in message
I found this most interesting on the CBS news last night.
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta gave an interview to
Scott Pelley and covered Iran developing nukes...

The U.S. is beyond broke. Google U.S. debt. We can no longer afford to
play world policeman.

If anyone nukes the U.S., then nuke them back. And perhaps if we
minded our own business, they would not want to nuke us in the first
place?

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 08:02:51 -0800, "Bill"
wrote:

wrote in message
I found this most interesting on the CBS news last night.
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta gave an interview to
Scott Pelley and covered Iran developing nukes...

The U.S. is beyond broke. Google U.S. debt. We can no longer afford to
play world policeman.

If anyone nukes the U.S., then nuke them back. And perhaps if we
minded our own business, they would not want to nuke us in the first
place?

Why do we need a "defense" budget equal to that of the rest of the
world combined. It isn't to keep my little house safe, it's to police
the rest of the world so the very wealthy can safely invest there.

Cut the defense budget by 90% and suddenly we have money for other
things, and maybe we can even keep some of our own money.

Yes, we're beyond broke.

There are some groups of people who wish our death, regardless of anything
we do or don't do. Nuke em back might not be a sufficient deterrant.


Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Bill" wrote in message
...

The U.S. is beyond broke. Google U.S. debt. We can no longer afford to
play world policeman.

If anyone nukes the U.S., then nuke them back. And perhaps if we
minded our own business, they would not want to nuke us in the first
place?

On Dec 20, 11:52*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
Yes, we're beyond broke.

There are some groups of people who wish our death, regardless of anything
we do or don't do. Nuke em back might not be a sufficient deterrant.

Exactly. How well did ignoring Hitler, the Japanese
or Al-Qaeda work?
And with the WMDs of today, ignoring what goes on in the
rest of the world is simply reckless. As for nuking them back, how
about a country like North Korea? They already have missles that
can hit Asia and are close or possibly already within range of
Hawaii. The country is already in the stone age
with little worth nuking. One fine morning some little nut job
gets ****ed off, doesn't give a damn and pushes the launch
button. If HI or LA is in ruins, seems getting even isn't the
best solution. Funny too, isn't it that the libs always condemn
US military action as being done out of revenge, yet that is
exactly what is being proposed here, instead of preventing
the disaster to begin with?

On Dec 20, 5:16*pm, "
wrote:
On Dec 20, 11:52*am, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
Yes, we're beyond broke.

There are some groups of people who wish our death, regardless of anything
we do or don't do. Nuke em back might not be a sufficient deterrant.

Exactly. *How well did ignoring Hitler, the Japanese
or Al-Qaeda work?
And with the WMDs of today, ignoring what goes on in the
rest of the world is simply reckless. *As for nuking them back, how
about a country like North Korea? *They already have missles that
can hit Asia and are close or possibly already within range of
Hawaii. *The country is already in the stone age
with little worth nuking. One fine morning some little nut job
gets ****ed off, doesn't give a damn and pushes the launch
button. *If HI or LA is in ruins, seems getting even isn't the
best solution. * Funny too, isn't it that the libs always condemn
US military action as being done out of revenge, yet that is
exactly what is being proposed here, instead of preventing
the disaster to begin with?

The wars with Japan and Al Qaeda were started by the USA. As will be
the open war with Iran.
The USA needs perpetual war to further enrich it's wealthy
kleptocrats.
Now you have pulled out of/buggered up Iraq, a new war is needed.

dgk wrote:

Why do we need a "defense" budget equal to that of the rest of the
world combined. It isn't to keep my little house safe, it's to police
the rest of the world so the very wealthy can safely invest there.

Cut the defense budget by 90% and suddenly we have money for other
things, and maybe we can even keep some of our own money.

"Money for other things" is not an appropriate argument. Federal money in
the U.S. is not a zero-sum game. If we want to fund something, we don't HAVE
to reduce something else.

As for being the world's policemen, if not us, who? Who will keep the
world's sea lanes open? Discourage aggression?

Britain used to be the world's policeman. After WWII they ceded that role to
the U.S.

There WILL be a super power that will use its strength to enforce
this-and-that. If not the Roman Empire or Britian, there will be someone
else. Again, if not us who?

Pick somebody from the following list of likely candidates:
* China
* Russia
* Japan

On Dec 20, 3:02*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
dgk wrote:

Why do we need a "defense" budget equal to that of the rest of the
world combined. It isn't to keep my little house safe, it's to police
the rest of the world so the very wealthy can safely invest there.

Cut the defense budget by 90% and suddenly we have money for other
things, and maybe we can even keep some of our own money.

"Money for other things" is not an appropriate argument. Federal money in
the U.S. is not a zero-sum game. If we want to fund something, we don't HAVE
to reduce something else.

As for being the world's policemen, if not us, who? Who will keep the
world's sea lanes open? Discourage aggression?

Britain used to be the world's policeman. After WWII they ceded that role to
the U.S.

There WILL be a super power that will use its strength to enforce
this-and-that. If not the Roman Empire or Britian, there will be someone
else. Again, if not us who?

Pick somebody from the following list of likely candidates:
* China
* Russia
* Japan

USSR got into cold war arms race with US and our country basically
bankrupted them......

now the terrorists are doing it to us.

we can no longer afford to be worlds cop

"bob haller" wrote in message
news:5e73256e-f1d8-4e9f-bc82-

stuff snipped

USSR got into cold war arms race with US and our country basically
bankrupted them......

now the terrorists are doing it to us.

It's funny that we never realized that what we did to the USSR, the
terrorists did to us. Lock the cabin doors and tell people it's not only OK
to stop airplane terrorists in the act, but that it was their patriotic duty
to do so. If those two things had been done, 9/11 couldn't have happened.
Israelis have locked jetliner cabin doors for over 20 years.

What worries me is that Americans don't seem to understand we're not the
only country that reacts very strongly to the death of its citizens. When
we lost 3,000 people, we then went out and killed 100's of thousands of
people who had nothing to do with 9/11. Don't any of the revenge obsessed
Americans have a clue that the relatives of 100's of thousands of the Iraqis
killed in our war will want to seek revenge on US? We've already had a
Pakistani travel across the world to kill people outside of CIA HQ in
Virginia. Killing begets more killing.

we can no longer afford to be worlds cop

Papers found in Osama's compound reveal that he was ecstatic about our
financial problems and gladly took credit for them. Truth be told, he was
right. A *lot* of our current deficit came from our over-reaction to 9/11.
When Katrina hit, did we declare war on hurricanes?

--
Bobby G.

On 12/20/2011 8:32 PM, Robert Green wrote:
"bob wrote in message
news:5e73256e-f1d8-4e9f-bc82-

stuff snipped

USSR got into cold war arms race with US and our country basically
bankrupted them......

now the terrorists are doing it to us.

It's funny that we never realized that what we did to the USSR, the
terrorists did to us. Lock the cabin doors and tell people it's not only OK
to stop airplane terrorists in the act, but that it was their patriotic duty
to do so. If those two things had been done, 9/11 couldn't have happened.
Israelis have locked jetliner cabin doors for over 20 years.

What worries me is that Americans don't seem to understand we're not the
only country that reacts very strongly to the death of its citizens. When
we lost 3,000 people, we then went out and killed 100's of thousands of
people who had nothing to do with 9/11. Don't any of the revenge obsessed
Americans have a clue that the relatives of 100's of thousands of the Iraqis
killed in our war will want to seek revenge on US? We've already had a
Pakistani travel across the world to kill people outside of CIA HQ in
Virginia. Killing begets more killing.

we can no longer afford to be worlds cop

Papers found in Osama's compound reveal that he was ecstatic about our
financial problems and gladly took credit for them. Truth be told, he was
right. A *lot* of our current deficit came from our over-reaction to 9/11.
When Katrina hit, did we declare war on hurricanes?

--
Bobby G.



No but a kind of war was declared on our own country by an invading army
of bayou scum that spread far and wide. o_O

TDD

On Dec 20, 9:32*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"bob haller" wrote in message

news:5e73256e-f1d8-4e9f-bc82-

stuff snipped

USSR got into cold war arms race with US and our country basically

bankrupted them......

now the terrorists are doing it to us.

It's funny that we never realized that what we did to the USSR, the
terrorists did to us. *Lock the cabin doors and tell people it's not only OK
to stop airplane terrorists in the act, but that it was their patriotic duty
to do so. *If those two things had been done, 9/11 couldn't have happened.

The Monday morning quarterback strikes again. As if using airliners
is
the only method Al-Qaeda has used around the world to kill thousands
of
people. Or that if left unchecked, they will not come up with
another
method. Just a year ago we were extremely lucky when the Al-Qaeda
from Africa with a bomb in his pants failed to successfully detonate
it.
The fire in his groin could just as easily have been a 767 falling
from the
sky in Detroit. Some mighty fine intelligence and police work, much
of it made possible by things you oppose, like the Patriot Act and
Gitmo has stopped many other attacks before they could occur.



Israelis have locked jetliner cabin doors for over 20 years.

And instead of wasting their time on grandma at the airport
they use intensive profiling to stop terrorsts, something you
libs would never allow here.



What worries me is that Americans don't seem to understand we're not the
only country that reacts very strongly to the death of its citizens. *When
we lost 3,000 people, we then went out and killed 100's of thousands of
people who had nothing to do with 9/11. *Don't any of the revenge obsessed
Americans have a clue that the relatives of 100's of thousands of the Iraqis
killed in our war will want to seek revenge on US?


We're not obsessed with revenge. We're obsessed with preventing
another
911 by muslim terrorist scum.



We've already had a
Pakistani travel across the world to kill people outside of CIA HQ in
Virginia. *Killing begets more killing.

We've had muslim terrorists killing people all over the world
long before 911. They always find something they don't like.
Why do you focus on just the USA? Al-Qaeda has waged war
on humanity in dozens of countries. They blew up airliners in the
Phillipines. They blew up embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
killing 200 and injuring 5000.
They used truck bombs four times in Turkey killing They blew
up a hotel in Indonesia, killing 57 and wounding 700.
They blew up the USS Cole, killing 17 and wounding 47.
They blew up the subways in the UK killing 57 and wounding 700.
They blew up trains in Spain.
And way back in 1993 they blew up the WTC the first time, killing 6
and injuring 1000.

See why it's not a US only thing and it's actually a
worldwide war on terrorism? See why your attempts to compare
Al-Qaeda to Terry Nichols are pathetic?



we can no longer afford to be worlds cop

Papers found in Osama's compound reveal that he was ecstatic about our
financial problems and gladly took credit for them. *Truth be told, he was
right. *A *lot* of our current deficit came from our over-reaction to 9/11.
When Katrina hit, did we declare war on hurricanes?

--
Bobby G.

It's quite offensive to compare a hurricane to muslim terrorist scum
that have killed thousands of Americans and thousands of others
around the world. But then you are a known ****wit who blames
the USA for everything and makes every excuse possible for
terrorists.

And there you go again, falsely blaming "a lot" of the deficit on over-
reaction
to 911. The budget has increased 40% in just 4 years, from 2007 to
2011. We had a budget deficit of $160bil in 2007, and it was steadily
declining. This year it's $1.6tril with a president who in the face
of that
wants to spend an immediate $500bil more . Some of the deficit due to
911, sure. A lot of it, no way.

On Dec 21, 12:27*pm, "
wrote:
On Dec 20, 9:32*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:





"bob haller" wrote in message

news:5e73256e-f1d8-4e9f-bc82-

stuff snipped

USSR got into cold war arms race with US and our country basically

bankrupted them......

now the terrorists are doing it to us.

It's funny that we never realized that what we did to the USSR, the
terrorists did to us. *Lock the cabin doors and tell people it's not only OK
to stop airplane terrorists in the act, but that it was their patriotic duty
to do so. *If those two things had been done, 9/11 couldn't have happened.

The Monday morning quarterback strikes again. * As if using airliners
is
the only method Al-Qaeda has used around the world to kill thousands
of
people. * Or that if left unchecked, they will not come up with
another
method. *Just a year ago we were extremely lucky when the Al-Qaeda
from Africa with a bomb in his pants failed to successfully detonate
it.
The fire in his groin could just as easily have been a 767 falling
from the
sky in Detroit. *Some mighty fine intelligence and police work, much
of it made possible by things you oppose, like the Patriot Act and
Gitmo has stopped many other attacks before they could occur.

Israelis have locked jetliner cabin doors for over 20 years.

And instead of wasting their time on grandma at the airport
they use intensive profiling to stop terrorsts, something you
libs would never allow here.



What worries me is that Americans don't seem to understand we're not the
only country that reacts very strongly to the death of its citizens. *When
we lost 3,000 people, we then went out and killed 100's of thousands of
people who had nothing to do with 9/11. *Don't any of the revenge obsessed
Americans have a clue that the relatives of 100's of thousands of the Iraqis
killed in our war will want to seek revenge on US?

We're not obsessed with revenge. *We're obsessed with preventing
another
911 by muslim terrorist scum.

We've already had a
Pakistani travel across the world to kill people outside of CIA HQ in
Virginia. *Killing begets more killing.

We've had muslim terrorists killing people all over the world
long before 911. * They always find something they don't like.
Why do you focus on just the USA? * Al-Qaeda has waged war
on humanity in dozens of countries. * They blew up airliners in the
Phillipines. *They blew up embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
killing 200 and injuring 5000.
They used truck bombs four times in Turkey killing * They blew
up a hotel in Indonesia, killing 57 and wounding 700.
They blew up the USS Cole, killing 17 and wounding 47.
They blew up the subways in the UK killing 57 and wounding 700.
They blew up trains in Spain.
And way back in 1993 they blew up the WTC the first time, killing 6
and injuring 1000.

See why it's not a US only thing and it's actually a
worldwide war on terrorism? *See why your attempts to compare
Al-Qaeda to Terry Nichols are pathetic?



we can no longer afford to be worlds cop

Papers found in Osama's compound reveal that he was ecstatic about our
financial problems and gladly took credit for them. *Truth be told, he was
right. *A *lot* of our current deficit came from our over-reaction to 9/11.
When Katrina hit, did we declare war on hurricanes?

--
Bobby G.

It's quite offensive to compare a hurricane to muslim terrorist scum
that have killed thousands of Americans and thousands of others
around the world. *But then you are a known ****wit who blames
the USA for everything and makes every excuse possible for
terrorists.

And there you go again, falsely blaming "a lot" of the deficit on over-
reaction
to 911. *The budget has increased 40% in just 4 years, from 2007 to
2011. *We had a budget deficit of $160bil in 2007, and it was steadily
declining. *This year it's $1.6tril with a president who in the face
of that
wants to spend an immediate $500bil more . *Some of the deficit due to
911, sure. *A lot of it, no way.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not really. Both were national emergencies. Both were cocked up.

The correct response would have been to have "invited" the Saudi
Arabians to pay full reparations. (Like a few G$) as it was their
citizens involved and stupid islaamic sect based in their country,
encouraged by the gov. there..

If they didn't pay, lay a few SA cities totally waste, (No repairs
afterwards either).
Make it clear next time would be worse.

Stupid Yanks, f**d up as usual.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:02:22 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

Stupid Yanks, f**d up as usual.

harry, was your father in the 8th Air Force located in England?

This might explain why you are ****ed off because you are not an
American.

The good news is you will never be American!, unless your dad came
from Mississippi.

On Dec 22, 5:24*am, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:02:22 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

Stupid Yanks, f**d up as usual.

harry, was your father in the 8th Air Force located in England?

This might explain why you are ****ed off because you are not an
American.

The good news is you will never be American!, unless your dad came
from Mississippi.

Can't think of a worse fate.
You need to be a retard to be American or have the ability to become
one,,,Right?

What's special about Mississippi?

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
stuff snipped

Sorry, but the literature is quite clear that medications don't work
with personality disorders.
(There was a shrink I used to work with who that the BIG hole in the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Illness was no diagnostic
criteria for Chronic Undifferentiated A**hole. Yet another illustration
that he was correct.)

Dude, so untrue! I can cure him given enough thorazine and phenobarb and
maybe a little ketamine if he really starts climbing walls. No more CUA
postings, no more nasty speech, no more higher cognitive functions, just a
little drooling and murmuring. Lobotomy in a pill jar.

--
Bobby G.

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
On 12/20/2011 8:32 PM, Robert Green wrote:
"bob wrote in message
news:5e73256e-f1d8-4e9f-bc82-

stuff snipped

USSR got into cold war arms race with US and our country basically
bankrupted them......

now the terrorists are doing it to us.

It's funny that we never realized that what we did to the USSR, the
terrorists did to us. Lock the cabin doors and tell people it's not
only OK
to stop airplane terrorists in the act, but that it was their patriotic
duty
to do so. If those two things had been done, 9/11 couldn't have
happened.
Israelis have locked jetliner cabin doors for over 20 years.

What worries me is that Americans don't seem to understand we're not the
only country that reacts very strongly to the death of its citizens.
When
we lost 3,000 people, we then went out and killed 100's of thousands of
people who had nothing to do with 9/11. Don't any of the revenge
obsessed
Americans have a clue that the relatives of 100's of thousands of the
Iraqis
killed in our war will want to seek revenge on US? We've already had a
Pakistani travel across the world to kill people outside of CIA HQ in
Virginia. Killing begets more killing.

we can no longer afford to be worlds cop

Papers found in Osama's compound reveal that he was ecstatic about our
financial problems and gladly took credit for them. Truth be told, he
was
right. A *lot* of our current deficit came from our over-reaction to
9/11.
When Katrina hit, did we declare war on hurricanes?

--
Bobby G.



No but a kind of war was declared on our own country by an invading army
of bayou scum that spread far and wide. o_O

Yep. Scum and cream both rise to the top.

--
Bobby G.

I say that if Iran wants a nuclear bomb then give `em one ---or
two---or three. Here catch.

well have you seen reports of violence in iraq........

just what we need, a new war in iran.

why not n korea?

the us can take over the world

On Dec 22, 7:51*am, bob haller wrote:
well have you seen reports of violence in iraq........

just what we need, a new war in iran.

why not n korea?

the us can take over the world

While we certainly don't need or want another war in
Iran, it might be preferrable to have that war and
put them out of the nuke business before
Iran acquires nuclear weapons. They don't have
to even use a bomb themselves. They already are
a sponsor of terrorism with a long history. It's not too
hard to imagine that they could either give weapons
grade fuel to terrorists who could then create their
own bomb or give them an actual nuclear
weapon.

On 12/22/2011 4:11 AM, Robert Green wrote:
"The Daring wrote in message
...
On 12/20/2011 8:32 PM, Robert Green wrote:
"bob wrote in message
news:5e73256e-f1d8-4e9f-bc82-

stuff snipped

USSR got into cold war arms race with US and our country basically
bankrupted them......

now the terrorists are doing it to us.

It's funny that we never realized that what we did to the USSR, the
terrorists did to us. Lock the cabin doors and tell people it's not
only OK
to stop airplane terrorists in the act, but that it was their patriotic
duty
to do so. If those two things had been done, 9/11 couldn't have
happened.
Israelis have locked jetliner cabin doors for over 20 years.

What worries me is that Americans don't seem to understand we're not the
only country that reacts very strongly to the death of its citizens.
When
we lost 3,000 people, we then went out and killed 100's of thousands of
people who had nothing to do with 9/11. Don't any of the revenge
obsessed
Americans have a clue that the relatives of 100's of thousands of the
Iraqis
killed in our war will want to seek revenge on US? We've already had a
Pakistani travel across the world to kill people outside of CIA HQ in
Virginia. Killing begets more killing.

we can no longer afford to be worlds cop

Papers found in Osama's compound reveal that he was ecstatic about our
financial problems and gladly took credit for them. Truth be told, he
was
right. A *lot* of our current deficit came from our over-reaction to
9/11.
When Katrina hit, did we declare war on hurricanes?

--
Bobby G.



No but a kind of war was declared on our own country by an invading army
of bayou scum that spread far and wide. o_O

Yep. Scum and cream both rise to the top.

--
Bobby G.


It's funny that the chocolate city leaves a bad taste in the mouth. o_O

TDD

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
Yes, we're beyond broke.

There are some groups of people who wish our death, regardless of anything
we do or don't do. Nuke em back might not be a sufficient deterrent.

But for the most part the people that want us dead are needle-dicked bug
rapers that don't have the means to do us harm unless we do something stupid
like not locking cabin doors or telling passengers not to resist.

The trillions we spent fighting could and should have been used to build
scanners to scan all the huge shipping containers that enter the country
daily. Experts seem to agree the threat now is that someone will get hold
of nuclear material from one of the former satellites of the USSR (there's
plenty missing and some Russkies have already died from plutonium poisoning
by not carefully wrapping what they were stealing). Then, with that
material they'll explode a bomb like the one McVeigh used to distribute the
material in some urban area like the Capitol, about 15 miles south of
e. )-: This stuff is NOT coming in by plane. We've been watching the
wrong doors for a long time.

Now that the doors are locked and people are looking to KILL hijackers with
their bare hands, we're just wasting resources hyper-checking passengers. I
think there's TSA on every plane now, because the times my wife has reported
something odd to the crew, like the guy fussing with something that turned
out to be an insulin pump, someone appears out of nowhere to deal with it
and she believes they've all been "strapped."

Still, by all standard definitions of war even a dirty bomb doesn't count
because it's a one-off event and not a concerted attack. It's a criminal
terrorist attack, not an act of war. If the very right-leaning think tank
RAND says that's true, there's a good chance that it is. (-: Since even a
police state like Russia can't tamp terrorism down completely, it tends to
indicate that it's a very intractable problem not easily solved by war or
crackdowns on particular ethnic groups.

There will always be insane people ****ed off to the max ready to do
terrible things. In the end, it's crazy to make war on crazy people. Our
best hope is to keep things we know to have terrorist potential like nuke
material and RDX out of their hands. LOCK and POP. Lock the cabin doors,
pop any stinking hijackers on the head with anything you've got. Pile up
enough people on a terrorist and you can kill him through compression
asphyxiation.

--
Bobby G.

On Dec 22, 10:20*am, "Robert Green"
wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message

...

Yes, we're beyond broke.

There are some groups of people who wish our death, regardless of anything
we do or don't do. Nuke em back might not be a sufficient deterrent.

But for the most part the people that want us dead are needle-dicked bug
rapers that don't have the means to do us harm unless we do something stupid
like not locking cabin doors or telling passengers not to resist.

For the most part you are an idiot and it sounds like
you're describing yourself above.

Al-Qaeda has waged war
on humanity in dozens of countries. They blew up airliners in the
Phillipines. They blew up embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
killing 200 and injuring 5000.
They used truck bombs four times in Turkey killing They blew
up a hotel in Indonesia, killing 57 and wounding 700.
They blew up the USS Cole, killing 17 and wounding 47.
They blew up the subways in the UK killing 57 and wounding 700.
They blew up trains in Spain.
And way back in 1993 they blew up the WTC the first time, killing 6
and injuring 1000.

Why do you make excuses for them and try to minimize
what they have done?






The trillions we spent fighting could and should have been used to build
scanners to scan all the huge shipping containers that enter the country
daily. *Experts seem to agree the threat now is that someone will get hold
of nuclear material from one of the former satellites of the USSR (there's
plenty missing and some Russkies have already died from plutonium poisoning
by not carefully wrapping what they were stealing). *Then, with that
material they'll explode a bomb like the one McVeigh used to distribute the
material in some urban area like the Capitol, about 15 miles south of
e. *)-: * *This stuff is NOT coming in by plane. *We've been watching the
wrong doors for a long time.

The wrong doors eh? How about the African muslim with
a bomb in his
pants that would have blown the Northwest flight out of the sky
near Detroit just a year ago, had it not malfunctioned. Being the
Monday morning quarterback, with 20-20 hindsight, you'd be
here bitching about that
and how airport security was the problem if he had suceeded.

As for the ports, I agree we should be increasing screening
there. So, let's take some of the excess money the govt is
spending and use it there.



Now that the doors are locked and people are looking to KILL hijackers with
their bare hands, we're just wasting resources hyper-checking passengers.

See the above Northwest incident. How about the shoe
bomber from a few years ago?



*I
think there's TSA on every plane now, because the times my wife has reported
something odd to the crew, like the guy fussing with something that turned
out to be an insulin pump, someone appears out of nowhere to deal with it
and she believes they've all been "strapped."

There has never been TSA on any planes, AFAIK. There
are federal marshalls on some flights.




Still, by all standard definitions of war even a dirty bomb doesn't count
because it's a one-off event and not a concerted attack. *It's a criminal
terrorist attack, not an act of war. *If the very right-leaning think tank
RAND says that's true, there's a good chance that it is.

Based on past experience here, I'd say that when you say it's
so, it's even more reliable than RAND that it's total BS.
Not a concerted attack? Al-Qaeda openly declared war on us.
They have been conducting concerted and continuing attacks
for decades. See the partial list above.




*(-: *Since even a
police state like Russia can't tamp terrorism down completely, it tends to
indicate that it's a very intractable problem not easily solved by war or
crackdowns on particular ethnic groups.

Who's been cracking down on ethnic groups?



There will always be insane people ****ed off to the max ready to do
terrible things. *In the end, it's crazy to make war on crazy people. *Our
best hope is to keep things we know to have terrorist potential like nuke
material and RDX out of their hands. *LOCK and POP.

Perhaps you missed how many bombs muslim extremists
have set off around the world. How would you keep
explosives out of their hands? Iran, for example, is freely
supplying them with it. What exactly would you do?



*Lock the cabin doors,
pop any stinking hijackers on the head with anything you've got. *Pile up
enough people on a terrorist and you can kill him through compression
asphyxiation.

--
Bobby G.

Incredibly naive and foolish.

harry wrote the following:
On Dec 20, 5:16 pm, "
wrote:
On Dec 20, 11:52 am, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
Yes, we're beyond broke.
There are some groups of people who wish our death, regardless of anything
we do or don't do. Nuke em back might not be a sufficient deterrant.
Exactly. How well did ignoring Hitler, the Japanese
or Al-Qaeda work?
And with the WMDs of today, ignoring what goes on in the
rest of the world is simply reckless. As for nuking them back, how
about a country like North Korea? They already have missles that
can hit Asia and are close or possibly already within range of
Hawaii. The country is already in the stone age
with little worth nuking. One fine morning some little nut job
gets ****ed off, doesn't give a damn and pushes the launch
button. If HI or LA is in ruins, seems getting even isn't the
best solution. Funny too, isn't it that the libs always condemn
US military action as being done out of revenge, yet that is
exactly what is being proposed here, instead of preventing
the disaster to begin with?

The wars with Japan and Al Qaeda were started by the USA. As will be
the open war with Iran.
The USA needs perpetual war to further enrich it's wealthy
kleptocrats.
Now you have pulled out of/buggered up Iraq, a new war is needed.


I agree with you.
We shouldn't have gotten involved in the European wars of WWI, or WWII.
Findest du nicht auch?


--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

"Herb Eneva" wrote in message
...
I say that if Iran wants a nuclear bomb then give `em one ---or
two---or three. Here catch.

Yep. That will start off WWIII with a bang. What scares me is that we
forgot the lessons of Vietnam in less than 25 years so it's pretty clear
we've forgotten the lessons of an even bigger war fought over 50 years ago.

Everyone's talking as if Iran getting the bomb signals the end of the world
but Muslims have had the bomb in Pakistan for quite some time now and the
world hasn't devolved into nuclear Armageddon. I don't particularly want to
see another Muslim country get their hands on a bomb, but I wonder if
starting WWIII to prevent it is going to be such a wise idea. The cure
being worse than the disease. Iran's having a nuke might even be a
stabilizing influence in the Middle East as nuclear weapons appear to have
been worldwide, as ironic as that seems.

The US could sustain immense damage from a nuclear conflict and still
survive. Israel could not because of its small size and high population
density. If we go to war with Iran, it will mostly be because of the threat
to Israel, not to the US. How far should we go to protect the interests of
other nations?

Countries appear very reluctant to attack enemies who have the bomb for fear
of retribution. The Iranians might even decide to detonate their first bomb
if and when *we* bomb their hardened research facility. If that happens
they can claim that *we* used nuclear weapons first. And the entire Arab
world (and many others) will believe them. That could easily be the trigger
point of WW Three.

We're all sailing in very, very dangerous waters these days. Yet our
politicians and citizens are up in arms over lightbulbs.

I, for one, don't wish nuclear war or its aftermath on the next generation
but it sounds like a lot of people are A-OK with seeing millions or even
billions killed. I don't get it.

--
Bobby G.

"willshak" wrote in message
...
harry wrote the following:
On Dec 20, 5:16 pm, "
wrote:
On Dec 20, 11:52 am, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
Yes, we're beyond broke.
There are some groups of people who wish our death, regardless of
anything
we do or don't do. Nuke em back might not be a sufficient deterrant.
Exactly. How well did ignoring Hitler, the Japanese
or Al-Qaeda work?
And with the WMDs of today, ignoring what goes on in the
rest of the world is simply reckless. As for nuking them back, how
about a country like North Korea? They already have missles that
can hit Asia and are close or possibly already within range of
Hawaii. The country is already in the stone age
with little worth nuking. One fine morning some little nut job
gets ****ed off, doesn't give a damn and pushes the launch
button. If HI or LA is in ruins, seems getting even isn't the
best solution. Funny too, isn't it that the libs always condemn
US military action as being done out of revenge, yet that is
exactly what is being proposed here, instead of preventing
the disaster to begin with?

The wars with Japan and Al Qaeda were started by the USA. As will be
the open war with Iran.
The USA needs perpetual war to further enrich it's wealthy
kleptocrats.
Now you have pulled out of/buggered up Iraq, a new war is needed.


I agree with you.
We shouldn't have gotten involved in the European wars of WWI, or WWII.
Findest du nicht auch?



Not to mention going after the Barbary Pirates, etc..

Robert Green wrote:
"Herb Eneva" wrote in message
...
I say that if Iran wants a nuclear bomb then give `em one ---or
two---or three. Here catch.

Yep. That will start off WWIII with a bang. What scares me is that
we forgot the lessons of Vietnam in less than 25 years so it's pretty
clear we've forgotten the lessons of an even bigger war fought over
50 years ago.

Everyone's talking as if Iran getting the bomb signals the end of the
world but Muslims have had the bomb in Pakistan for quite some time
now and the world hasn't devolved into nuclear Armageddon. I don't
particularly want to see another Muslim country get their hands on a
bomb, but I wonder if starting WWIII to prevent it is going to be
such a wise idea. The cure being worse than the disease. Iran's
having a nuke might even be a stabilizing influence in the Middle
East as nuclear weapons appear to have been worldwide, as ironic as
that seems.

The US could sustain immense damage from a nuclear conflict and still
survive. Israel could not because of its small size and high
population density. If we go to war with Iran, it will mostly be
because of the threat to Israel, not to the US. How far should we go
to protect the interests of other nations?

Countries appear very reluctant to attack enemies who have the bomb
for fear of retribution. The Iranians might even decide to detonate
their first bomb if and when *we* bomb their hardened research
facility. If that happens they can claim that *we* used nuclear
weapons first. And the entire Arab world (and many others) will
believe them. That could easily be the trigger point of WW Three.

We're all sailing in very, very dangerous waters these days. Yet our
politicians and citizens are up in arms over lightbulbs.

I, for one, don't wish nuclear war or its aftermath on the next
generation but it sounds like a lot of people are A-OK with seeing
millions or even billions killed. I don't get it.

It's quite simple, really. It all depends on who the millions or billions
are.

On Dec 24, 7:33*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Herb Eneva" wrote in message

...

I say that if Iran wants a nuclear bomb then give `em one ---or
two---or three. *Here * catch.

Yep. *That will start off WWIII with a bang. *What scares me is that we
forgot the lessons of Vietnam in less than 25 years so it's pretty clear
we've forgotten the lessons of an even bigger war fought over 50 years ago.

Everyone's talking as if Iran getting the bomb signals the end of the world
but Muslims have had the bomb in Pakistan for quite some time now and the
world hasn't devolved into nuclear Armageddon.


Gee, that's reassuring, isn't it? In a couple of decades nothing bad
has
happened, so it must be OK. Pakistan is one coup d etat away from
Muslim extremists haeing the bomb.


*I don't particularly want to
see another Muslim country get their hands on a bomb, but I wonder if
starting WWIII to prevent it is going to be such a wise idea. *The cure
being worse than the disease. *Iran's having a nuke might even be a
stabilizing influence in the Middle East as nuclear weapons appear to have
been worldwide, as ironic as that seems.


They are only possibly stabilizing in the hands of people who
share some of our common sense of values. Like not wanting
to see hundreds of millions die. Unfortunately, those values
are not shared by muslim extremists. In fact, they want and
openly welcome mass killings.



The US could sustain immense damage from a nuclear conflict and still
survive. *Israel could not because of its small size and high population
density. If we go to war with Iran, it will mostly be because of the threat
to Israel, not to the US. *How far should we go to protect the interests of
other nations?


How far was every president since WWII prepared to go to defend
say Germany? I think we know the answer, except for the sad case
of one president that I can think of. As for Iran only being a threat
to Israel, how about some other scenarios. Having nukes and
feeling invulnerable:

They issue demands on the other ARab govts, oil producers, etc?
They invade Iraq.
They block the oil shipping lanes?
They give nuclear materials to terrorists just like they are now
doing with conventional means?
They continue their missle development until they have an ICBM



Countries appear very reluctant to attack enemies who have the bomb for fear
of retribution. *The Iranians might even decide to detonate their first bomb
if and when *we* bomb their hardened research facility. *If that happens
they can claim that *we* used nuclear weapons first. *And the entire Arab
world (and many others) will believe them. *That could easily be the trigger
point of WW Three.

We're all sailing in very, very dangerous waters these days. Yet our
politicians and citizens are up in arms over lightbulbs.

I, for one, don't wish nuclear war or its aftermath on the next generation
but it sounds like a lot of people are A-OK with seeing millions or even
billions killed. *I don't get it.

--
Bobby G.

I think the people you speak of above are indeed the problem.
Those people are the muslim extremists and guys like "I'm a
nut job", president of Iran. He's stated he has no problem losing
a third of Iran if that's what it takes to wipe out Israel. He denies
the holocaust ever happened. You want his finger on the nuke
button?

"HeyBub" wrote in message
Robert Green wrote:

stuff snipped

We're all sailing in very, very dangerous waters these days. Yet our
politicians and citizens are up in arms over lightbulbs.

I, for one, don't wish nuclear war or its aftermath on the next
generation but it sounds like a lot of people are A-OK with seeing
millions or even billions killed. I don't get it.

It's quite simple, really. It all depends on who the millions or billions
are.

Fortunately most of the world's leader have a more sane perspective on a
nuclear holocaust than you and some other posters have. Widespread nuclear
war is going to poison the "lucky" survivors slowly and painfully. Even you
will feel the effects as radioactive dust is blown high into the
stratosphere and turns into radioactive rain, falling thousands of miles
away from where the bombs fell. You'll be eating radioactive food and dying
slowly from any number of ways that radiation kills. Alas, Babylon.

--
Bobby G.

On Dec 26, 10:04*pm, "Robert Green"
wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
Robert Green wrote:

stuff snipped

We're all sailing in very, very dangerous waters these days. Yet our
politicians and citizens are up in arms over lightbulbs.

I, for one, don't wish nuclear war or its aftermath on the next
generation but it sounds like a lot of people are A-OK with seeing
millions or even billions killed. *I don't get it.

It's quite simple, really. It all depends on who the millions or billions
are.

Fortunately most of the world's leader have a more sane perspective on a
nuclear holocaust than you and some other posters have.

Doesn't matter what most think. All it takes is one.



Widespread nuclear
war is going to poison the "lucky" survivors slowly and painfully. *Even you
will feel the effects as radioactive dust is blown high into the
stratosphere and turns into radioactive rain, falling thousands of miles
away from where the bombs fell. *You'll be eating radioactive food and dying
slowly from any number of ways that radiation kills. *Alas, Babylon.

--
Bobby G.