Re: World Trade and more

["Mark R. Leaman" <mleaman@sccoast.net>]

> This is a reasonable senario, but it's not what the administration wants.
> They want a quickie, successful war, with some pretext to take over oil
> fields, and then a huge buildup of military armament to the tune of
several
> billion dollars.

Keets:

Uh, I don't know about that. Taking over and keeping the oil fields is more
than anyone can handle in this world, and definitely not the right thing to
do.

> The reason George H. didn't go all the way in his little
> war and eliminate Saddam Hussain was because then they would have no enemy
> to warn the taxpayers about.

Maybe, or maybe because he didn't want to deal with instability in that
region. Either way, he was wrong not to get Hussain out and this is part of
why the attack happened Tuesday. The terrorist leaders feel safe, and why
shouldn't they? We have taught them we will not take them out.

> What did Howard have to say about it?  When I tuned in, he had the usual
> bimbos on.

Howard had all the networks on, would change from one to the other, had
eyewitnesses, made clever commentary. Almost no jokes.

> So, it sounds to me like we turn the Middle East into a parking lot, and
> then there will be no more threat.  I'm all for it....

Jon:

But you know we can't really do it. Target everything but Israel? Kill `em
all, let God sort them out? Even I, in my most bloody-minded mood, can't get
behind that. And who's going to protect it once we "own" it? I don't want to
live in the desert.

> There will be a larger military, as you will see.  The funding was
released
> by Congress this morning.

Keets:

Oh, yeah, Bush gets what he wanted (but wasn't going to get). And the
economy is going to get worse.

> And what I'm saying is that attacking isn't going to change it either.

Brian:

I think it will, if we can scare them enough to be afraid to attack us
again.

> I believe we have to do what we have to do to protect ourselves. But, if
> anyone thinks that by doing so we get to go back to the world before
> Tuesday, think again.

We can make a lot of progress toward it when we know there's no longer an
unseen hand at our throats.

> folks.  The administration is moving while you sit glued to the news feed.

All I can say is I wish Clinton, Gore or McCain was there instead. I'd feel
better about the decisions which will be made.

> I just heard now that Americans are attacking fellow (*Muslim*) Americans.
> I don't know in what scale this happens.

Bjorn:

Thankfully, not too much. But this is one of the two reasons I want the
illegal aliens evicted. The other being we can feel safer about terrorists
not being among us.

> Meanwhile Bush & Co. have two options: build a coalition to condemn O.B.L.
> and try to build the intelligence network and diplomatic pressure to get
him
> or make some kinda flashy military attack to try to satisfy America.

Brian:

I think it's going to take both.

> and BAM! IT HAPPENS AGAIN!

Well, this IS why I want to see real action taken. My fear is the easier
road will be taken. Already world opinion is starting to shift and
soften...less than a week later. Already pledges of help are being
"defined." When you hear words like "measured response" and "bringing to
justice," know that this is the path which will lead to further such
attacks.

> And what might this be?  How exactly do we protect ourselves from
terrorists?

Jon:

Put the fear of Allah into them.

> We know who many of the terrorists who have attacked us are. Whether or
not
> they are involved in this incident, we should attempt to kill them all.

Yes, but the problem is ones not involved will attempt at some point to
avenge the ones killed or jailed (because they share the beliefs). The
children of those killed with grow up with revenge in their hearts. They are
not to be reasoned with. We have done nothing to make them want to kill us.
So we have to do something bigger than they did, to show them not to fuck
with us. Ever.

> You know what?  I blame Religion, with a capital "R,"

Scott:

Every religion is subject to manipulation, which is why blind faith (while
being a Hell of a band) is a dangerous thing. That doesn't mean believing in
a higher being is bad, but on the other hand knowledge is power. Following
anything blindly (except perhaps The Who) is bad.
Religion has also been a civilizing force in culture. So if you look at the
bad and the good, it comes out about even...just like every other thing we
do.

> despite your obvious disagreement with republican politics, all subsequent
> re-counts in Florida indicate that bush really did win.

Kevin Mc:

What about all those which were "thrown away." No, we all know what happened
there. I mean, why would Bush not want the votes counted if he felt like
he'd won? Indeed, he should have insisted on it.

> The early reports of
> bush losing Florida certainly cost him as many votes as the butterfly
ballot.

Or energized his western supporters. Could have been either or both!

>  The economy has nothing to do with him and you know it.

I know that it does, but I'm not going to discuss it here (contact me
privately).

>  Once found he would make sure he dies before being captured- and maybe
try
> to take a few American operatives with him, only enhancing his status as a
> fundamentalist leader.  It will do us no good to have him martyred.

This will happen even if Afghanistan hands him over. This is a problem
without a solution, as far as I can figure. Except to make them shit their
collective diapers and decide it's not worth messing with the US.

> Afghanistan will most definitely get bombed in the mother of all bombings.

That solves nothing. If we bomb, if we attack, it's going to have to be
multiple targets. If it was up to me, I'd bomb the capitals of Iraq,
Afghanistan, wherever Bin Laden is if not in the capital, and get Arafat
wherever he is too (withOUT the help of Israelis, so they cannot be blamed
later). Then subsequent smaller attacks on any known terrorist camps or
training facilities.
This strong a response would make the world fear the US.
Next, give the remaining countries with terrorists 48 hours to give up any
terrorists to NATO or the UN. If they don't comply, they will be considered
our enemy.

> unlikely.  Good chance Iraq gets pounded also and don't be surprised if
Iran

Now THIS I like! Iran has now come out to say they think the Trade Center
attack was done by the Israelis and they condemn it.

> Tuesday night.  Nukes are not an option.  The UK, France (maybe), Germany,
> and a few other euros will participate.

All of NATO has pledged full resources. The UK will certainly want to
participate, I think.

> consequence in the oil industry (FYI).  This marks the beginning of the
end
> of the era of Islamic Terrorism.

What about Sudan, Yemen, Libya, Lebanon, Egypt, Turkey, etc. etc. etc.? What
of Arafat, who has allowed this type of thing while "condemning it" to the
press?

> maybe succeed here) must be done. But to suggest (indirectly even) that we
> support the wholesale murder  of many innocent people  is scary

Steve:

Scary, yes...there is a point when you have to take lives to save more
lives. Or take lives to save you own life and that of your family and
friends. It would be great if we could read minds and know who's to blame
and who's not, and who will in the future and who won't...but in the
meantime, those we KNOW are guilty are hiding behind innocents..."human
shields"...because they know we're good-hearted enough not to fire on
innocents. This we have taught them in the past.
As for the cycle, let me point out yet again that what we did to Japan
didn't throw us into a cycle...in fact, the next generation was all about
peace and love!

> Nuclear weapons should NEVER again be used in a war, or even in the
> open air.  It's suicide.

Here here! That would be the ultimate stupidity.


"God may have mercy on you, but we won't."
        Senator John McCain


               Cheers                 ML