Whhhhaaaaatttt?????

I was merely pointing out that the rampant overreliance on glass was directly responsible for your injury. That and your evil ways. What we should really be focusing on is all those poor folks who used to live on that sand that corporate America stole from them to make glass. I mean, all they have to live on now is, uh, more sand!

What really yanks my chain is that we paid some of those folks for the sand - uh, I mean we stole it. And then they used it to make themselves rich - the bastards! So now there's a buncha rich guys living on the sand that used to be poor. Clearly we shouldn't have allowed them to be rich. We should have distributed that money that we paid for the sand equally to every single dang one of those sand guys - uh, I meant money that we didn't give them 'cause we stole the sand. But no matter, you stabbed yourself with the glass that was made from the sand that used to have a bucha poor guys living on it. Now one of those guys is rich, they're all still living on the sand and everyone else is still poor. God??? How can you live with yourself??

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

And others were left off the list, ie.. Pakistan, Indonesia, Egypt, ........

How do we win this war on terror?

Some Ideas:

1. Appease the enemy, I'm not sure what that means. I don't know what will make them satisfied. If it means withdraw our troops from the middle east and they (Islam) will in turn make peace with the western world, then fine. That would be easy, cheap, and the simpleist thing to do. Save alotta blood on both sides. Could it be that simple? I doubt it.

2. Maybe the above and relocate the country of Israel to somewhere else (maybe Montana, lots of open country up there and Isreal is very small). That might do it. The only thing Islam hates more than the US is Isreal. I think we can all agree to that. I Don't think the Israeli's will buy it though, but I actually think that would work.

3. Continue the path were on for many, many years. Fight them on their own ground killing them one by one, hopeing we can deplete their will and manpower before we deplete ours. I have some serious doubts we'll ever win this way.

4. Step up our attacks, expand the war to include all hostile Islamic countries and take it to the next level warfare, nuclear. Scare the hell out of them with the ultimate weapons of mass destruction. Worked pretty well on Japan,
and would definitly give them something to think about. Unfortunity that probably would start the end of the world scenerio as we know it.

Those are my remedies to resolve the conflict. The only one I see that will stand a chance of working is #2. Would that mean giving into to defeat? Not if it meant a lasting peace and avoiding a nuclear war which I see as unavoidable in the near future.

Other than #2, the next best chance to win without giving up is #4. Ever hear of Armageddon or the apocalypse? Something both cultures religions believe as our destiny and final judgement day. I'm not a religious person but maybe there is something to that reality after all.

__________________
Question Authority before it Questions you.

Yep. That was hilarious.

Then there's the Monty Python skit about the "wonderful chocalates" made with bug guts...

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

Dude, you're starting to remind me of Glenn Beck.

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

who's he?

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

Sorry, but the sideways arrow did not take me to anything where I said "directly."That's all way above my head, but I don't think it means that my sentence included the word "directly."That's true, I did say that.Lets agree to disagree about that.

Just the most pompous, self righteous, sarcastic gas bag on talk radio.

Whoa, I must be hitting close to home on some of your cherished beliefs if you're reduced to grotesque sarcasm as a last defense.

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

I don't think it's all that cut and dry. Each option may be useful for a point in time and not another. As time moves the situation changes, you have to react and plan accordingly. The countries mentioned were:

Iraq
Iran
Lebenon
Syria
Yeman
Afganistan
Palestine
Arabia
Libya (not mentioned, but a previous state sponsor of terrorism)

Each country wouldn't be dealt with in the same way. Like was mentioned before, there is turmoil and dissident groups in every country. Ours blew up a federal building. Some of the countries mentioned have more orchestrated and connected dissident groups. It is in the best interest of the country to take care of that themselves - arabia, afghan, yemen, libya. Other countries are comprised of the terrorist groups - Iran, Syria, Palestine (not really a country, but hey). Still others are in transition - Iraq, Lebanon. You don't deal with all of them the same. The transition countries are very important. Not only to they provide a strategic base, as did Lebanon for Iran and Syria, they provide an example of what life could be like without the mullahs and the despots. Iran could easily be this if it weren't for the theocracy. Whatever forward movement there has been could be easily destroyed by something as simple as pulling out of Iraq. I see things moving in the right direction but I don't think it'll happen instantaneously. That's an issue for us in this country and the west - we have no patience and are used to instantaneous. That's why it has been repeatedly said that this will take a long time - even longer if we lose the transition countries, of which Iraq is the most important.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

There's that closet republican coming out again!

Despite what you think and it doesn't really matter, I don't think I've ever listened to Jeff Beck. As I've pointed out numerous times, talk radio and hannitly and colmes and whatnot are not my bag. I'm much more inclined to read an essay by Hanson or Pipes or Hitchens or something on the American Thinker, for example. When I do watch TV it's usually the science channel or the history channel with various adult swim and sci-fi shows thrown in the mix. But do what you want, I think it's kinda cute that you listen to all those shows that you "claim" to hate so much. Come on now, be true to yourself, get that big 'ole elephant poster you know you want

Besides, I thought Limbaugh was the most pompous gasbag on radio??? At least that what you've said before

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

I'll bet you've heard plenty of Jeff Beck but don't realize it. I thought he played guitar for Rod Stewart back in the 70's. He was pretty good, but certainly no Clapton.

Holy guitar strings! You're right. I have listened to Jeff Beck, I think I might even have one of his albums floating around somewhere. Then there's the other Beck, who also does some pretty cool music stuff.

As for the political Beck, I guess I'll have to listen to him sometime to see if Cmac was really dissing me - That's right, Cmacadoodle, you're on notice 'til I can figure out if you was slamming me or not!

PS. Wasn't Jeff Beck in Led Zeppalin? or the Firm?

Oops, nope I was thinking of jimmy paige.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

Consider this too. You think that if they did it would end? What if they ask for more? Yes, in a perfect world, it should end all hostilities. Actually, it would end it even in this imperfect world. It would be considered a sign of weakness and thus a signal to let the exploitation begin. Look at Lebanon. If they were leveled and totally killed it would be victory for the Isrealis. That some were alive and only the terrorists targeted, it was considered a victory for Hezbollah. As I have said before, Hezbollah and Hamaas are NOT intrested in your gee-whiz technology that can single out 2 people out of 1000. They are intested in how many of that 1000 you can kill and if you can do it repeatedly.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

What kind of bombs? They were mainly targeted at Hezbollah positions. Yes, some civillians got bombed too. Sucks to be them. Maybe they shouldn't let Hezbollah put up a missile site in their neighbourhood?

I harbor a known criminal. Police come for him and he puts up a fight. My house now looks light swiss cheese. Whose fault?

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

September 06, 2006
The 'Incompetent' Bush Administration
By Cal Thomas

Congress returned to town this week for an abbreviated session. One doesn't need to be psychic to predict little will be accomplished in the run-up to the November election. Democrats, aided by their many media allies, can be counted on to parrot their latest line about the "incompetent" Bush administration.

When gas prices rose to near record levels this summer, it was supposedly due to the incompetence of the Bush administration. Gas prices have now dropped to well under $3 a gallon where I live. If it was Bush's "incompetence" that caused the spike, does he now get credit for the decline? Market forces set gas prices, so he should neither be blamed for the spike, nor praised for the decline, but the Democrats won't see it that way.

August employment figures again show a healthy economy due largely to what Democrats call "irresponsible" tax cuts for the wealthy. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, total non-farm payroll employment increased by 128,000 last month, with the unemployment rate staying at a low 4.7 percent. Does the president get competence points for this? Not from Democrats.

The war on terror scored an important victory last weekend with the arrest of al-Qaida's No. 2 in Iraq, Hamed Jumaa Farid al-Saeedi. Iraqi and coalition forces issued a statement that said the arrest has caused al-Qaida a "serious leadership crisis." Will Democrats and their media allies praise the Bush administration for this sign of competence in fighting the Iraq War? No, because this is about Democrats regaining power and nothing more. Were the Bush administration to announce it had discovered the fountain of youth and cures for cancer and adolescent rebellion, it wouldn't be enough.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush has repeatedly stressed that the war with terrorism will be long, difficult and frustrating. It is unlike any war the country has fought and so all comparisons - from the time it is taking, to the number of casualties - are imperfect. It is not a war America chose to begin; it is a war the United States could not escape.

This war was unavoidable, because religious fanatics concluded a new strategy was needed after Arab states lost five wars to Israel. They viewed Israel as strong - until the Lebanon fiasco - and the United States weak. That weakness, they determined, wasn't in military might, but in staying power. They calculated the United States lacks the stomach for a long war, especially one fueled by religious fanaticism.

Seeing America as religiously weak and morally challenged, the islamofascists are determined to strike us where we live. The Clinton administration failed to see this war coming, but Democrats do not regard its minimal response to terrorist attacks as incompetence or weakness. Condemnation is reserved exclusively for President Bush, who they say misjudged the war on terror by attacking Iraq. But the war was coming and would have come with or without the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. If the United States and the rest of the coalition does not defeat the insurgents in Iraq, that country will become a terror state and the price we will pay when future attacks against America are launched from an islamofascist Iraq, allied with Iran, will make 9/11 pale in comparison.

At a symposium last spring on "Islam and the West," which was sponsored by The World Affairs Council of Philadelphia, Walter Russell Mead of the Council on Foreign Relations noted, "The human species is facing a huge historical, cultural problem... For reasons that have very little to do with the U.S., we need to face the fact that we'll be living with this for a very long time." Mead said it isn't just an Arab problem, but an Islamic world problem, which transcends borders and regions. "If you don't understand this, you're deluding yourself," he said.

Do Democrats and their media allies understand this or are they deluding themselves? What would they do differently from the Bush administration in credibly fighting this plague that transcends borders, regions and even political parties? Should Democrats win a congressional majority in the fall election, they must do more than try to frustrate the president, hoping to win the White House in 2008. The war won't wait for them to prove their competence, or incompetence.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

The president's plan for winning the war on terror:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/09/national_strategy_for_combatin.html

Contrasted with the Democratic plan for winning the war on terror:

"let's pack up our crap and go home, we, and the UN, can talk our way out of trouble with these Muslim folks. They'll leave us alone if we just leave them alone."

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone