Victory over Terror? (GOOD READ)

[Bronx33]

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21713

To long to post.

[Rohirrim]

My good friend Wes Clark—or, as Rush Limbaugh calls him, “Ashley Wilkes,” said that Iran is really more important than Iraq and that we should have focused on Iran. Again, Ashley got it wrong and here’s why: because Saddam did have nuclear weapons. He was still developing nuclear weapons. He had chemical and biological weapons. In his own words. In a discussion with Saddam, Tariq Aziz said to him, “We could put nuclear weapons or biological in the United States, have them detonated by proxies and there wouldn’t be any fingerprints,” because, as he said, “we couldn’t get by with an explosion.” So I found it extremely interesting that he felt that they could get by with a biological attack because of the Fort Dietrich efforts that the U.S. are doing.
That's where I stopped reading.

[Spider]

That's where I stopped reading.
same here .......

[Bronx33]

OK your missing the story then..

[Spider]

OK your missing the story then..
Thats fine ........The story supports the same kind of thinking that got us into this shít ........ we need sound fundemental reasoning to beat Ideas .......
This isnt like fighting a goverment , or squashing a rebelion , and if a story doesnt address this , it isnt worth reading .........

[Bronx33]

Thats fine ........The story supports the same kind of thinking that got us into this shít ........ we need sound fundemental reasoning to beat Ideas .......
This isnt like fighting a goverment , or squashing a rebelion , and if a story doesnt address this , it isnt worth reading .........

If you didn't read it then you really don't know how it finishes and to tell you the truth i didn't post it for that paragraph.

[Spider]

If you didn't read it then you really don't know how it finishes and to tell you the truth i didn't post it for that paragraph.
sorry , but I am not interested in the ending , starting out a story making excuses in a how to win a war is like going into a shower with a rain coat on ...... making excuses for what happened is a waste of time , and if a dumb truck driver that cant spell can understand that , then this guy should have been right on target from the get go ..........

[Bronx33]

sorry , but I am not interested in the ending , starting out a story making excuses in a how to win a war is like going into a shower with a rain coat on ...... making excuses for what happened is a waste of time , and if a dumb truck driver that cant spell can understand that , then this guy should have been right on target from the get go ..........



I guess you don't like murder mysteries then since they are not truthful from the get go. ;D

[bendog]

I read it, but I'm not sure it's telling the truth. flat out I don't care if someone gives money to hamas. If I were one of the palestinians in my local med school, I prolly would when I could afford it. And, I'm not at all sold that there's a real fundy islam movement inside the US among US muslims. Some sure. Enough to justify putting warrantless taps on mosques for perpetuity ... I really don't know.

[Spider]

I guess you don't like murder mysteries then since they are not truthful from the get go. ;D
LOL , Naw I dont like murder mysteries , cant stand that Law and Order show or those half dozen CSI shows..........But this is a different animal Bro

[bendog]

I thought it was a good read. Good to know waht the neocons are doing. Whether it's good or bad we cannot invade anyone else, after they broke the army in Iraq, I'm not sure.

[Bronx33]

I thought it was a good read. Good to know waht the neocons are doing. Whether it's good or bad we cannot invade anyone else, after they broke the army in Iraq, I'm not sure.

I didn't agree with some of it but it didn't keep me from reading it.

[Rohirrim]

Again, Ashley got it wrong and here’s why: because Saddam did have nuclear weapons.
How can I read it when he makes a statement like that? Hans Blix reported at the time, and just about everybody worth a damn since then, says that the above statement is absolute BS. F the koolaid drinkers.

[bendog]

I didn't agree with some of it but it didn't keep me from reading it.
It's good to know what the enemy is thinking, and these guys, along with grover norquist, dick cheney, rumsfeld and bushii are my enemies.

[BroncoBuff]

I read it, but I'm not sure it's telling the truth. flat out I don't care if someone gives money to hamas. If I were one of the palestinians in my local med school, I prolly would when I could afford it.
I'm open to the idea that Hamas can and will change, now that they're in control ... become less bloodthirsty in its stated goals. I can even understand Palestinians donating to the Hamas government ... but I would sure like a primer on all that history, because I don't understand it completely ... for example:

1) Why don't the Palestinians simply incorporate non-Israeli territory (a la Ireland/N.Ireland)? They could simultaneously "claim" portions of Israel, forcing a U.N or World Court type of forum to adjudicate the claims. Continuing as unincorporated just seems "outside of civilied law" to me ...

2) Ariel Sharon pulled outta the Gaza strip and other settlements - he actually FORCED Isrealis out militarily. Why can't the Palestinians reciprocate in some manner that piggy-backs Sharon's peaceful, courageous moves? Sharon deserved a quid-pro-quo for these courageous actions ....

I just don't understand the history .... in 1948, was that whole region "unincorporated"? If so, why didn't the Palestinians act before the Israelis did?

[enjolras]

A good history of the conflict:

http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm

Does a fairly good job of providing the facts without coloring them to much.

[Bronx33]

I'm open to the idea that Hamas can and will change, now that they're in control ... become less bloodthirsty in its stated goals. I can even understand Palestinians donating to the Hamas government ... but I would sure like a primer on all that history, because I don't understand it completely ... for example:

1) Why don't the Palestinians simply incorporate non-Israeli territory (a la Ireland/N.Ireland)? They could simultaneously "claim" portions of Israel, forcing a U.N or World Court type of forum to adjudicate the claims. Continuing as unincorporated just seems "outside of civilied law" to me ...

2) Ariel Sharon pulled outta the Gaza strip and other settlements - he actually FORCED Isrealis out militarily. Why can't the Palestinians reciprocate in some manner that piggy-backs Sharon's peaceful, courageous moves? Sharon deserved a quid-pro-quo for these courageous actions ....

I just don't understand the history .... in 1948, was that whole region "unincorporated"? If so, why didn't the Palestinians act before the Israelis did?


They don't seem to want to work out any other deal other than wiping out all the jews.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

That's where I stopped reading.

Yep.

That's where it becomes apparent that the author drank the BushCo Kool-Aid.