Re: [Osx-nutters] President Bush Vows Attacks “Across the World”

[Chuck Bennett]

On Oct 5, 2006, at 11:33 AM, Chris Gehlker wrote:

> On Oct 5, 2006, at 8:23 AM, Chris Gehlker wrote:
>
>> While  I don't endorse Matt's tone, I don't see why he should be  
>> required to suggest an alternative. If his position is: 'You're  
>> fucked.; You did it to yourself; and there is no solution at this  
>> point', what's wrong with that?


Nothing, but talking about getting old..    We might as well play  
clips from the scene in Aliens where the guy yells "Game Over Man,  
Game Over"   the difference being that even he got his act together  
enough to go down fighting.

Actually, 'we' are not fucked..   We haven't been attacked in the US  
since we went on the offensive.   No matter the bleating that we are  
not safer, one must ask.  How so?

We know they want to attack us and have made plans to do so.  we also  
know that the attacks have be thwarted.   Perhaps, just perhaps, they  
are a little too preoccupied elsewhere at the moment to mount a full  
scale plot against us here.  If that is all we can come up with at  
the moment, then that is head and shoulders above doing nothing.

Yes, the fate of UBL isn't known for sure, but the one thing we do  
know is that he isn't getting out much.

Matt's 'solution', if I understood it correctly, is to change  
administrations. (leaving aside that impeaching Bush makes Cheney  
President)

The problem is that that is naive to a fault.   It's like  suggesting  
the way to deal with the barbarian hordes that have been harrassing  
the city for 20 years is to change the Mayor hoping that they will go  
away.

I can't imagine how we would have fought (and won) WWII with this  
kind of thinking.   Imagine.  Japan attacks Pearl Harbor and the US  
responds by impeaching FDR thinking that Japan would just leave us  
alone if we changed administrations.

This problem isn't new.

We've had problems with terrorists since before the Carter  
administration.   The problem isn't with Republican or Democrat  
administrations it's with the fundamental approach to dealing with  
it.   Actually, it's PC run amok and an unwillingness to face the  
reality about the nature of the enemy.

Guy is right.  We call it a GGWOT but that is with a wink and a  
nod..   Anyone that can think 'knows' who and what we are actually  
fighting.

One thing we do  know, fact certain,is  that the old way wasn't  
working.   The attacks were get larger and more frequent long before  
Bush took office.   The signs were all there, but everyone was  
ignoring them.   Odds are that Bush wouldn't have done anything  
differently either, if it wasn't for  9/11.   That changed everything  
and is rocking the world view of the kumbaya crowd.  It's a hangover  
from the 60's that just won't go away.

Of course It's the way of all bureaucracies.  They react to the  
'last' problem and they never deal with the future.  Real security  
consists of spending vast amounts of money and lives so that  
'nothing' happens.   That always looks like a waste before you are  
actually in a fight and seems obvious in hindsight.

They think  "If we would just leave them alone, they would stay put  
in their little Arab world and everyone else could all sing kumbaya  
and share a coke"

News Flash..  The Pope was right by quoting that rheir 'God' commands  
them to spread the word, by the sword if necessary.

Kill, Convert or Submit.   Those are our only choices, as far as they  
are concerned.   You ignore this to your own peril.

Like I said, naive to a fault.

Ask the French how that whole 'leaving them alone' thing  is  
working.   What they are doing with all those burned cars BTW?.  Ask  
the Brits about the subways and the Spaniards about their trains..   
the Danes about burned embassies.  (over a fucking cartoon!  I mean,  
How can you deal with people that riot over cartoons or mistake Buddy  
Jesus for an Imam and then riot about it?  I don't know either, but  
leaving them alone is NOT going to work.)

People can bitch, and complain all they want about Bush's decision to  
confront them head-on but he simply didn't cause the problem, the  
problem was delivered to him airmail.  The 9/11 attacks are just the  
latest in a long line.   His approach to fixing the problem may make  
it worse.   It may be futile to even try, but at least he is making  
some sort of  effort to do something that keeps the fighting  
somewhere else.    Workable, better ideas are welcome.   Leaving them  
alone is not.

It must be nice to be free to bitch without having a better idea,   
but where I live, if you don't have one, it's considered wise, or a  
least polite, to STFU, until you do.

Then again, perhaps you are right, that it is unfair to ask him for a  
better idea, so let's look at how his suggestion of 'changing the  
administration' has worked out in the past.

We actually do change it every 4 to 8 years, by law..  Here is the  
past..

Long before BuchMcHitler was attacking all over the place we were  
pretty much leaving the terrorists alone.  (although this is also  
Bush's fault for some reason)   The occasional cruise missile  
perhaps, but nothing consistant.   Before that he entire west was  
busy mucking about in the Middle East mostly fighting a proxy was  
with the USSR.    We created and supported little monsters, but they  
were 'our' monsters so we ignored what they were preaching in their  
own country as long as they weren't Communist.   This crossed  
Democrat and Republican administrations.  It crossed countries.
T
he UK helped support those monsters as much as we did but all of old  
NATO was involved.

The seeds we all planted 'way back then' have come to fruition.  We  
can look back and understand why.  We can even assign blame and point  
fingers at all the stupid things that were done.    But the one thing  
we cannot do is change the past.

Easily since Mu'ammar Qaddaffi seized power and Libya started funding  
Islamic terror worldwide, about 1969,
there have been terrorist attacks against the west.

What shut Mu'ammar down?    Mostly he got very quiet after Reagan  
just about nailed him in 1986.

Why did that mean old Reagan take a pot shot on a sovereign nation?

Becuase of a fucking TERRORIST attack on a nightclub in Berlin that  
was controlled by and funded by Libya

So even back then, leaving them alone didn't work.

Aside: Yes Virginia, there were terrorists and attacks long before  
Bush and not all of them Islamic in nature.
In fact, I was dealing with Bader Meinhof and the car bombing of V  
Corp headquarters in Frankfurt way back in 1972, while many on this  
list were likely in diapers, if they were even born.

But we are talking about Islamic terrorists so, what were those folks  
doing while we were leaving them alone?

They were attacking us and other Western countries.    Why?  Because  
Matt is right in part.  Terrorism IS in idea.   A fascist idea, but  
it's an idea that works pretty well.     Kill, Convert or Submit and  
if you die you go to heaven.

Oh, and they just hate Jews..

Pretty simple idea.  Easy to explain and even easier to implement.     
The problem is that they intend to spread that  idea far and wide  
because they think their God wants them too.

Personally, I have intention of submitting or converting and I object  
in no uncertain terms to me or my family being killed , so that  
simplifies my options in dealing with them and provides some clarity  
when I make choices about the best way to rid myself of them.  This  
also makes it easier to figure out which politicians I support and  
which I oppose.

Note to the kumbaya crowd.  You can't negotiate your way out of this  
one because it's simply not up to you.

Let me repeat that last part.  It's NOT up to YOU.   You don't get to  
decide.

The war was already declared, you didn't get a vote

That's why you can't just leave them alone, because you have no  
control over what they do.  There is no amount of appeasement that  
will satisfy them and if you stand up to them, they blow themselves  
up in your subways, train stations or take out buildings with  
planes.  It sucks greatly but ignoring this reality will get you killed.

They believe that you will break before they do.    For some of us,  
that is no doubt the case.   There was an active anti-war movement in  
WWII as well.

Education will not fix the problem either.   We are NOT talking about  
illiterate bumpkins here.  The 9/11 attackers were quite well  
educated.  They 'knew' the West and rejected it in toto.

So..  "Game Over Man, Game Over" and they are right.  Hell, the N.Y.  
times wouldn't run cartoons of that goat molester, Mohammed  (oops..  
did I really type that? ) so they ARE having some influence.

OTOH, the way they see it is thus.

If you don't respond to their attacks, they think you are weak.   
(UBL's words, not mine) and that simply emboldens them to go for  
bigger attacks in the future.    That was the lesson UBL said he drew  
from Somalia and 'Black Hawk Down' and leads us to 9/11

Perhaps there is a long term solution to the problem, but it looks to  
me like the only workable solution in the short term for people  
wanting to kill you is to get to them first and hopefully on their  
turf, not yours.    Of course you should be looking for a way to stop  
future attacks and deal with radical Islam, but that shouldn't keep  
you from taking the battle to them while you figure out what to do.

Actually there are other ideas that make some sense, at least for Iraq.

Here is one <http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/how-to-winlose-the-war- 
in-iraq.htm>

Daly makes good points about why our Army isn't set up to deal with a  
Counterinsurgency very well, and what to do about it.

He disagrees with what we are doing now but the difference is that he  
is actually SUGGESTING something to try.

Not just bitching to hear his head echo..

In other news.. <http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/ 
0,7340,L-3311189,00.html>

Damn, why didn't anyone tell me it is Ramadan?   Too late now..


=c=