As to the notion that terrorist would not be able to be held responsible for a dirty bomb, I say balderdash!

If our intelligence agencies are so worthless as to not be able to determine the source of a dirty bomb then what are we paying for? (gee, for the liberal here, I seem to be the only one concerned with government spending waste here)

If we have been in aggressive combat in a "War on Terrorism" for these nearly 6 years (assuming that there was obliviousness the years prior, which is an erroneous assumption, but for the sake of the discussion...) and we have not even created the intel network to be able to read the "fingerprints, or absence thereof" then this is absolutely time for a dramatic change in the leadership of this confrontation.

So, please, stop with the backslapping and guffawing and "see what I mean"ing of your mutual admiration society and use your head for something other than a hatrack.

And if the what is at stake is so high, then the nations that harbor terrorism are for sure saying to the heads of those organizations, "Not while you are here you don't!"

The point here being that the chance of a dirty bomb being blown up in the USA is far more remote than the administration (and the terrorists) would like you to believe.

Both of those groups are working on the same damned nerve (of yours) they both want you to live in fear of what might happen, especially if the fear itself is their objective.

FDR famously said "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." This administration says "Be afraid, be very afraid!"

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

for the liberal here,

[/quote]

How you can be so lacking in self respect is amusing.

Tell us something.  What do you believe that you think somebody like me does not believe?

"... especially if the fear itself is their objective."

We know that this is their objective, because we know that they know that they can NOT beat us. The best they can do is give us a black eye and a bloody nose.

I don't look forward to either, nor do I look forward to the death and destruction that would come after it.

Devil's-Advocate,

Don't waste your fingerprints typing to me. You are absolutely without merit and I won't bother replying to you.

The point here being that the chance of a dirty bomb being blown up in the USA is far more remote than the administration (and the terrorists) would like you to believe.

Possibly so.  We are more likely to be hit with a swarm of smaller, more widespread attacks similar to but on a much larger scale than those in Israel.   Or more likely a biologically based attack.  Smallpox anyone?  Poisoned water supply?   Food contamination?

The issue of terrorism is that a small group with a small amount of funds can cripple a larger country and cost us billions of dollars.  Their cost to return ratio is very low.

Meanwhile people like Bond Guy and others sit back and deny that there is a problem or distort what the problem is to be in line with their lollipop and rainbow view of people and the world.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

The knowledge that the US had the power and the will to use nuclear weapons turned Nikita Kruschev's ships around in the Carribean.[/quote]

It was MAD (mutual assured destruction) that turned around the Soviet ships and missiles from <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Cuba.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

The differences between THAT threat and THIS threat are obvious;

1)     The Soviets had a territory and population they didn’t want to see vaporized

2)     The Soviets believed we would do it

3)     Al Qaeda has no territory to defend, they have no population they care about

4)     Bin Laden’s been quite clear that based on the examples of Beirut and Somalia that we lack the stomach to do it, even IF they had a population and territory to care about.

Again, this goes back to your failure to see the religious fervor element of this. Krushev had a thirst for power, but he and his followers didn’t have a thirst for martyrdom.  They didn’t believe that their agenda would prevail if they killed themselves in the process of killing you and your kids.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Devil's-Advocate,

Don't waste your fingerprints typing to me. You are absolutely without merit and I won't bother replying to you.

[/quote]

Can't even handle a simple question such as citing something you believe that you think I don't.

You're a mental midget and I shall mock you till you cry like the sissy you are.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

And if the what is at stake is so high, then the nations that harbor terrorism are for sure saying to the heads of those organizations, "Not while you are here you don't!"[/quote]

Those nations that would consider harboring terrorists know they'd be held responsible for attacks that came from their territory because Bush told them, you're either with us or you're with the terrorists. Of course, you lot wet your pants when he said that.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

As to the notion that terrorist would not be able to be held responsible for a dirty bomb, I say balderdash! [/quote]

I don't recall anyone saying that. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

It took fifteen years to find the Unabomber, and he was here in the <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US. No doubt we’ll find the individuals at the top of Al Qaeda (those that aren’t already dead), but that’s not the same as saying we’ll level that nation they represent, nor is it the same as acknowledging that a willing martyr expects us to find and kill him someday.  Neither of those two threats amount to a deterrent to a terrorist.

What people did say was they you clearly don't understand the asymmetrical situation we’re in.

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Re: Religious Fervor.

Are we REALLY that naive as to believe religiousity?

Do we REALLY think that the driving force behind people is god, other than the one true god; POWER?[/QUO

No, whom, you can call it a thirst for power. It makes no difference to the people who will happily cut off your head to further the "god" you claim they don't really care about.

[/quote]

Some people you just can't reach. The people who do the blood letting are the misled. So, yes they will, in their misguided way, murder you for their God. It's their leaders, who use God to get the followers to do their bidding, who are Godless. Like bin Laden himself they are the disenfranchised. They hate us for who we are. It ain't about God. Got it now?

As for the Muslims not denouncing terrorist, I've heard plenty of Muslims do just that. Unfortunately for the Muslims, the Muslim voice is weak in our country. No Muslim radio networks or television networks. They have only local leaders to carry their voice. How far does that carry? No further than the local weekly shopper paper. Meanwhile the racist, as this board demonstrates, are in full gear forwarding the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim hate machine.

If we accept their terms that this is a religious war, we lose.

This is a war about hate waged by madmen.

"....you're either with us or you're with the terrorists."

That's a false choice and only fools fall take the false choice bait.

How'd that worm taste? With your experience you'd be sure to win Fear Factor!

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Knowledge of Pakistani nuclear weapons keep us from expanding the war into their territory (which is why the Al queda is now keeping sanctuary there).[/quote]

Actually we don't fear <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Pakistan's nuclear weapons, because Pakistan’s government isn’t hostile to the US. What we fear is what an US incursion into Pakistan would to do the fragile internal politics there, and how it might lead to the collapse of Musharraf’s government and the chance of a radical Islamist element taking its place. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[quote=BondGuy]

Some people you just can't reach. The people who do the blood letting are the misled. So, yes they will, in their misguided way, murder you for their God. [/quote]

Ahhh, progress. Now, if you'd simply realize the element of fervor present, we'd be getting somewhere.

[quote=BondGuy]

It's their leaders, who use God to get the followers to do their bidding, who are Godless. Like bin Laden himself they are the disenfranchised. [/quote]

Tell me again, just who are you to tell us that bin Laden isn't really motivated by religion? And just why is it that you're so interested in making this assertion, in the face of all evidence to the contrary?

[quote=BondGuy]

They hate us for who we are. It ain't about God. Got it now?

[/quote]

Ahhh, here we go, the Left's attempt to overlay their life-long laundry list of foreign policy gripes on to bin Laden. Next comes the "if only we'd" plea, as if bin Laden's just some rational, disaffected leader who isn't motivated by, you guessed it, religion. 

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

"....you're either with us or you're with the terrorists."

That's a false choice and only fools fall take the false choice bait.

[/quote]

There's no false choice about it, as you proved yourself when you talked about the leaders of nations telling terrorist organizations in their country "not while you're here".

[quote=Dust Bunny]

Meanwhile people like Bond Guy and others sit back and deny that there is a problem or distort what the problem is to be in line with their lollipop and rainbow view of people and the world.

[/quote]

DING! DING! DING! We have a winner....

[quote=Dust Bunny]

The point here being that the chance of a dirty bomb being blown up in the USA is far more remote than the administration (and the terrorists) would like you to believe.

Possibly so.  We are more likely to be hit with a swarm of smaller, more widespread attacks similar to but on a much larger scale than those in Israel.   Or more likely a biologically based attack.  Smallpox anyone?  Poisoned water supply?   Food contamination?

SMALLPOX? Where are they going to get smallpox? Now if you said Ebola...

Here is where this comes back to Katrina. And here is where this crosses over to Hilary's request for an exit strategy. If I were president, I would have a plan to deal with an outbreak of Ebola. It wouldn't be a pleasant plan and it would involve the killing of lots of people not yet infected, but the plan would be in place.

What we consistently see from this administration is that they have no plan other than a plan to retain power for themselves. And that is what bothers me (speaking only for myself). I may not agree with what someone else thinks, but if I feel he is thinking, I'm willing to respect his thoughts.

How can we not have an exit plan for Iraq? How could we have been so incompetent in dealing with Katrina (especially after how competent we had been in previous natural disasters)? How can it be that the justification for the war in Iraq has changed with the polling data? Why is it that Ossama Bin laden is still alive?

After I've seen again and again a military and an administration operating with such incompetancy, how can I rationally have faith that next time they'll do better? 

The issue of terrorism is that a small group with a small amount of funds can cripple a larger country and cost us billions of dollars.  Their cost to return ratio is very low.

Yes, true, and when they have a willing ally in the White House who wants you to be constantly afraid.

I don't disagree that terrorism should be dealt with. I do disagree that this is the administration to do it.

Meanwhile people like Bond Guy and others sit back and deny that there is a problem or distort what the problem is to be in line with their lollipop and rainbow view of people and the world.

I don't get that vibe from BondGuy at all. I think that there are many fronts in a war against terror, not least of which being "Stop pissing people off!"

Let's be realistic here, our foreign policies have been atrocious over the decades. Our corporations have supported regimes that have won the race to the bottom in terms of protecting their own populations from the consequences of being the low cost provider. Look at the history of Nike as an example. Or Union Carbide in Bhopal, or Kathy Lee Gifford's sweat suit shops, or Mexico, or Louisianna for that matter.

Our corporate partner's actions have bitten us in the ass so many times it look's like a pitbull's chewtoy!

Almost every war says that religion is at the heart of it, but the truth is that they are all over money.

[/quote]

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Knowledge of Pakistani nuclear weapons keep us from expanding the war into their territory (which is why the Al queda is now keeping sanctuary there).[/quote]

Actually we don't fear <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Pakistan's nuclear weapons, because Pakistan’s government isn’t hostile to the US. What we fear is what an US incursion into Pakistan would to do the fragile internal politics there, and how it might lead to the collapse of Musharraf’s government and the chance of a radical Islamist element taking its place. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[/quote]

Yes this is all true, but what do we care who rules Pakistan? Because the person that rules Pakistan rules Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

Please Mike, please. I know you are a smart guy, I respect your intelligence, please stop insulting mine.

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=Whomitmayconcer]

"....you're either with us or you're with the terrorists."

That's a false choice and only fools fall take the false choice bait.

[/quote]

There's no false choice about it, as you proved yourself when you talked about the leaders of nations telling terrorist organizations in their country "not while you're here".

[/quote]

No Mikebutler222, all I proved was that there are nations that know the terrorist elements within their borders.

There are lightyears between not being "with us" and being "against us".

I may disagree with you, but that doesn't mean I wish you any harm and it certainly doesn't mean that I wil abet anyone doing you harm.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Here is where this comes back to Katrina. [/quote]

Ahh, you mean comes back to the Democrat fable, because it sure as hell doesn't come back to the reality of Katrina.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]And here is where this crosses over to Hilary's request for an exit strategy. [/quote]

Of course that's not what Hillary requested. She asked for a public disclosure of a withdrawal plan, and she did it trying to form a political trap. If the administration said “here’s our plan” her response would have been “See, they’re PLANNING TO LEAVE”. If the administration withheld a plan (and there are contingency plans for everything) she’d say “THEY HAVE NO PLAN!!!”. The Asst Sec. Def was right to tell her that public discussions of contingency plans serves no one but the enemy.

 [quote=Whomitmayconcer]                                                                  

 I think that there are many fronts in a war against terror, not least of which being "Stop pissing people off!"

Let's be realistic here, our foreign policies have been atrocious over the decades.

[/quote]

Thank you for providing the proof that the entire agenda behind the Left denying bin Laden’s motivation is religious is exactly so they can do what you’ve done here, which is to substitute YOUR foreign policy grievance list for that of the one bin Laden’s been providing for years.

It’s Nike, or Union Carbide or, god forbid, Kathy Lee Gifford. God help us if people of your mind every gain control of the defense of this nation….