[quote=Whomitmayconcer][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]

No one's insulting your intelligence but you. You simply prove again you don’t understand the asymmetrical war we’re in.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 We don't want to see Musharriff's government fall and an Islamic one take its place because Al Qaeda would then have an entire nation to use as a training base. The fact that Pakistan has nukes is secondary, it’s doubtful they have the missiles to get them here AND, unlike Al Qaeda, even an Islamic government of Pakistan might care about having its population vaporized.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer][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. [/quote]

And why would they tell those terrorist groups "not while you're here"? Because they now know that harboring terrorists no longer means "hey, not my fault" if they go on to harm the US or others.

[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]

DB, without the cheap shots at my lack of proper capitalization please point me to the the post where I deny there is a problem? Or that I propose a lollipop view of the world?

I'm not sorry that I don't share your racist view of the Muslim world. And I make no apologies for taking you to task for your simplistic FOX News take on the WAR on Terror. However, because I don't share your racist and misinformed views you attack me.

I take the people who would destroy us very seriously. I have to. They are very smart. They have not only bamboozled their own followers, they've bamboozled you too. How smart is that?

And let's keep this post in context. Istill luv ya, you're a great asset to this board. But seriously, I for one, could do without the racist diatribe. You don't like Muslims- message received loud and clear.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

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

[/quote]

Demonstrate a single reason why what you have to say should be considered to be worthy of anybody's curiosity, much less respect?

I asked you a simple question--what do you believe that you think somebody like me does not--and you ran like a little girl.

"....her response would have been “See, they’re PLANNING TO LEAVE”.

And that would have whom, exactly? Hilary? The Democrats, who have a much better situation saying that the administration has no plan?

And if Hilary is this good at politics (which I think she is) then we should give credit where credit is due and recognize that she's qualified for the job.

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

Again with the "Democrat" routine.

Mikebutler222, we saw it, we were here when it happened, we're still living with the consequences today. The administration just flat out failed in its test of disaster preparedness. not to mention that the administration went out of it's way to make sure that the pain of Katrina came out of our pockets when it refused to free up any of the Strategic Oil Reserves to stabilize the markets.

"Thank you for providing the proof that the entire agenda behind ..."

I love how one of "Many fronts" is "code" for an "Entire agenda" in Mikebutler222's mind.

BWahahahahahaha!

"We don't want to see Musharriff's government fall and an Islamic one take its place because Al Qaeda would then have an entire nation to use as a training base. The fact that Pakistan has nukes is secondary, it’s doubtful they have the missiles to get them here AND, unlike Al Qaeda, even an Islamic government of Pakistan might care about having its population vaporized."

and

"And why would they tell those terrorist groups "not while you're here"? Because they now know that harboring terrorists no longer means "hey, not my fault" if they go on to harm the US or others."

You're funny Mikebutler222, just watching you do backflips and tumblesaults and pick and choose which "reality" we want to believe now versus then.

Before we were worried because people who have no nuclear weapons might use a dirty bomb on us and now we're not worried if those self same people get ahold of working nuclear bomb technology because they maybe don't have a delivery system for the same. That's really funny!

So what we're really worried about is a ground assault of trained Al queda soldiers? And what? If our satellites show us where they are training (and they will) we'll just let them be? You're funny!

And in one statement you aver about "Radical Islamists"

mikebutler222 wrote:

No one said "blame Islam". We've all been pretty clear that we're talking about Islamic extremists. Those would be the people who believe their religion calls them to establish the dominance of their religion over all others, to kill non-believers and to fly planes into buildings.

And then you say that they wouldn't when it's convenient to you string of self delusions.

Really Mikebutler222, do you think that anyone who isn't a complete fool and who doesn't already agree with you is going to accept such contortions as valid?

Talk about you asymetricality!

Not to mention, you just kneecapped the entire justification for "Pre- Emptive War"

If Radical Islamists aren't going to use nuclears on the US because they know that the consequence is glassification, then why wouldn't Saddam have known the same damned thing?

Because he figured we wouldn't bomb oil fields?

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

"....her response would have been “See, they’re PLANNING TO LEAVE”.

And that would have whom, exactly? Hilary? [/quote]

What is it you're asking here, "and that would have whom.."?

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

And if Hilary is this good at politics (which I think she is) then we should give credit where credit is due and recognize that she's qualified for the job.[/quote]

Actually, playing politics by wanting to publicly debate contingency plans proves she’s not qualified.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

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

Again with the "Democrat" routine. [/quote]

Please don’t pretend that your recitation of the Democratic fable of Katrina is any but that, a partisan fable.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

"Thank you for providing the proof that the entire agenda behind ..."

I love how one of "Many fronts" is "code" for an "Entire agenda" in Mikebutler222's mind.

BWahahahahahaha!

[/quote]

Spare me, Whom, you did exactly what I said. You dumped bin Laden’s stated agenda, the one he’s talked about for better than a decade, then you tried to replace it with your shop-worn list of complaints about <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US foreign policy. THAT’S the reason you’re in denial about his agenda’s religious roots, it crowds out your “if we’d only” list of things you’d want us to do even  if bin Laden had never been born.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Coolshoos,

Naive? Not.

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

Knowledge of Russian nuclear bombs kept Americans in a ground war in VietNam.

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).

Knowledge of North Korean Bombs keeps us from there.

When we determined that it was some guy hiding in Afghanistan that had mastermineded/financed the 9/11 attack, we sent forces into Afghanistan to find and destroy the terrorist network (and I'm all for such effort). While there is now serious doubt that our military could carry out a land war elsewhere there is no doubt in anyone's mind that we have the technology to destroy anyplace on a massive scale. Further, any strategist will know that the very fact that we have overdeployed our ground troups makes us more willing to use "any means at our disposal" in retaliation.

Does that clear it up?

[/quote]

Sorry, I take back " naive".

We are at the heart of the matter. Everyone is disappointed that humanity has not evolved to the point where negotiation, or isolation, or threat of nuclear force is not effective in the case of terrorism.

In no way is the threat of nuclear force viable for terrorism as it is in the case of North Korea, where a multi lateral approach involving China, Japan and Korea is the real stick and free trade is a carrot.

As for Iraq, it is a shame that the secular interests of dictatorships like Russia or Saudi or China or diasporas like France can't help take leadership. But don't let your feelings be hurt, and don't wallow in dysfunctional self pity.

I don't think liberalism is compatible with pragmatism, so I think those who envision humanity as it should be ought to be respected.

Even the Orthodox Christian Church put self defense (taking of life) in the context of justice. Jesus doesn't, the church, in her wisdom, does.

On terrorism, and Iraq, the blowing up of Wall Street, the free world's inability to stand in solidarity with its leader, these tragedies history will judge.

I was more moderate or liberal before 9/11. " Them " blowing up Wall Street was like a billy club to the head. The reason we are in Iraq is because "they" blew up Wall Street, and all the whining about the why, and the how, and the what if, has nothing to do with behaviour, which in the end is what matters.

It's a little like folks standing around and wringing their hands about the internal fees of various managed funds. Allreit is like the French, he is going to try to figure out a way to sell weapons to the Iranians and make a profit, while everyone else carries the yoke of our history and commitments.

Free choice is a good thing; those who stand in the small inner circle of commitment also bear a heavy and soulful burden.

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

Not to mention, you just kneecapped the entire justification for "Pre- Emptive War"

If Radical Islamists aren't going to use nuclears on the <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US because they know that the consequence is glassification, then why wouldn't Saddam have known the same damned thing?

Because he figured we wouldn't bomb oil fields?

[/quote]

You’ve dipped into self-parody, Whom. Try reading this slowly, perhaps it might sink in.

Nations have territory and populations to be concerned about. Even Islamist governments can be expected to be concerned about “glassification”, IF they think we have the will (which is in serious doubt due to Beirut, Somalia and even Iraq, if some people get their way), and if they allow their fingerprints to be on the weapon (it wouldn’t have been expected for Saddam to allow for those fingerprints, he didn’t allow Al Qaeda a high-profile presence in his country).

Terrorist organizations, OTOH, have no territory, no populations to speak of, and due to their religious beliefs welcome personal martyrdom.

Again, I suggest you look up the term “asymmetrical warfare”.

I'm not sorry that I don't share your racist view of the Muslim world

Throwing down the race card is just another distraction to the real issue.  Islam is not a race.  It is a religion that is worldwide and includes many different nationalities and races.  You should try to know the distinction.  

There is nothing racist about my attitudes toward Islamofascist and the people who support them either actively or by silent agreement.

The left tried to use the same tactic on anyone who disagreed with the open border illegal immigration issue.  If you aren't for illegal and uncontrolled immigration you must be a racist.  If you make the remarks that the City of New Orleans and the people of New Orleans were not prepared for Katrina and that they created many of their own problems you are a racist.   If you disagree with High Priest Gore about global warming, you get compared to being a Holocaust denier.  I guess they haven't figured out how we can be tagged racists on that one......yet.

If Radical Islamists aren't going to use nuclears on the US because they know that the consequence is glassification

They know no such thing.  They don't care about it either.

What is the antidote to suicide and murder being used on a wide scale as a political weapon?

Take a moment and imagine a science fiction movie about such a scenario.

There is only one solution, and that is why the current scenario clashes with compassion and liberalism.

The real tragedy is the exoposure of the character of the average American in 2007.

[quote=Dust Bunny]

I'm not sorry that I don't share your racist view of the Muslim world

Throwing down the race card is just another distraction to the real issue.  Islam is not a race.  It is a religion that is worldwide and includes many different nationalities and races.  You should try to know the distinction.  

There is nothing racist about my attitudes toward Islamofascist and the people who support them either actively or by silent agreement.

The left tried to use the same tactic on anyone who disagreed with the open border illegal immigration issue.  If you aren't for illegal and uncontrolled immigration you must be a racist.  If you make the remarks that the City of New Orleans and the people of New Orleans were not prepared for Katrina and that they created many of their own problems you are a racist.   If you disagree with High Priest Gore about global warming, you get compared to being a Holocaust denier.  I guess they haven't figured out how we can be tagged racists on that one......yet.

If Radical Islamists aren't going to use nuclears on the US because they know that the consequence is glassification

They know no such thing.  They don't care about it either.

[/quote]

Being prejudiced against Muslims makes you a racist whether you recognize that fact or not. You, in your posts, have lumped all Muslims together. They're all bad in you view. Perhaps you don't realize that's the view you presented? DA wants to drive them out of the country. MikeB attaches terrorism to their religion in every post.

Many if not most of these Muslims are American citizens. Yet the lynch mob is forming. If intelligent people, like those who reside on this board feel this way, what about those who aren't so well read?  

As for Katrina see my new topic on the bus issue. 80% of that city's population was evacuated. A success in any book.

Was the Katrina problem about race? I don't know. I do know that FEMA was in my upper middle class white neighborhood one day after Charley. Race a factor? I hope not. I vote for incompetence as the reason for the katrina FEMA fiasco, but you be the judge.

[quote=BondGuy]

DA wants to drive them out of the country.

Many if not most of these Muslims are American citizens. Yet the lynch mob is forming. If intelligent people, like those who reside on this board feel this way, what about those who aren't so well read?

[/quote]

I don't want to run them out of the country--I want them to engage in a frenzy of buying transportation back to the sand countries from which they came.

As for the rest of the drivel above--the country is teeming, absolutely teeming, with people who would be happy to hunt Muslims as if they were deer.

Why they would want to stay in light of knowing that they're no more welcome than a dose of clap escapes me.

[quote=BondGuy][quote=Dust Bunny]

I'm not sorry that I don't share your racist view of the Muslim world

Throwing down the race card is just another distraction to the real issue.  Islam is not a race.  It is a religion that is worldwide and includes many different nationalities and races.  You should try to know the distinction.  

There is nothing racist about my attitudes toward Islamofascist and the people who support them either actively or by silent agreement.

The left tried to use the same tactic on anyone who disagreed with the open border illegal immigration issue.  If you aren't for illegal and uncontrolled immigration you must be a racist.  If you make the remarks that the City of New Orleans and the people of New Orleans were not prepared for Katrina and that they created many of their own problems you are a racist.   If you disagree with High Priest Gore about global warming, you get compared to being a Holocaust denier.  I guess they haven't figured out how we can be tagged racists on that one......yet.

If Radical Islamists aren't going to use nuclears on the US because they know that the consequence is glassification

They know no such thing.  They don't care about it either.

[/quote]

Being prejudiced against Muslims makes you a racist whether you recognize that fact or not. You, in your posts, have lumped all Muslims together.    Horse apples!!!   What I have said is that until Muslims repudiate the actions of the Islamofascists and terrorists to show that Islam doesn't condone or promote those types of activities, they are just as bad as the terrorists.  The fact that they don't distance themselves from these actions and allow hate of others to be preached in their mosques tells me that this IS a part of Islam. 

I'm from the show me State originally.  So if the Muslim community doesn't want to be treated with suspicion, fear and hatred.....show me your good intentions.

They're all bad in you view. Perhaps you don't realize that's the view you presented? DA wants to drive them out of the country. MikeB attaches terrorism to their religion in every post.

I don't want to drive anyone out of the country who is here legally.  What I want is for them to obey the laws, not whine for special favors (footbaths , segregated schools, refusing to accomodate  taxi patrons ) because of their religion and keep their religion to themselves.  I ask the same thing of Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Catholics and Gaia worshipers.

When the terrorist attach Mohamed and their religion to their acts with every word and every action, Mike B is quite correct in connecting the two.

Many if not most of these Muslims are American citizens.    No they are not.   Are you delusional? The terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Towers was here on visas, many of them expired.  Islamofascists come from all over the world.  Some may be American citizens but they are decidedly in the minority.

Yet the lynch mob is forming.   No lynch mob.  Just clear vision and self preservation.  If intelligent people, like those who reside on this board feel this way, what about those who aren't so well read?  

As for Katrina see my new topic on the bus issue. 80% of that city's population was evacuated. A success in any book.

Was the Katrina problem about race? I don't know. I do know that FEMA was in my upper middle class white neighborhood one day after Charley. Race a factor?   I hope not. I vote for incompetence as the reason for the katrina FEMA fiasco, but you be the judge.  The fiasco in New Orleans, had not so much to do with racism as with graft, corruption, incompetence, stupidity and severe damage to a city that is built under sea level.   As far as I'm concerned, there is no need to rebuild all of New Orleans at the expense of the rest of the country, only to be damaged again by the next big storn.  Turn it into an adult Mardi Gras/Jazz Music/Disneyland.  

The poor people in New Orleans are better off being moved someplace else where they may have a chance to get out of the chains of poverty and class that existed in the City.

And this Muslim agenda is not just in the United States.

http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/04/norway-blind-people-rej ected-by-muslim.html

http://www.geocities.com/islamic_monitor/islamic_agenda.html

We ignore all of this at our own peril.  On the other hand Whommit is somewhat correct in that a terrorist attack on a city in the US will not completely destroy our country.  We are too large for that and there are too many people, especially in the fly over States, that are more than willing to take matters into their own hands, since it is all too apparent that the liberals who are taking over Congress are ready to hand victory to the terrorists and sell us all down the river.

[quote=mikebutler222]

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

"....her response would have been “See, they’re PLANNING TO LEAVE”.

And that would have HELPED whom, exactly? Hilary? [/quote]

What is it you're asking here, "and that would have helped whom.."?

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

And if Hilary is this good at politics (which I think she is) then we should give credit where credit is due and recognize that she's qualified for the job.[/quote]

Actually, playing politics by wanting to publicly debate contingency plans proves she’s not qualified.

Playing politics is backing your oponent into a no win situation, just like the administration did by calling for the war powers vote right before the elections in 2002. If the Dems had voted against, they would have suffered greater losses in the mid term elections, if they voted yes then the situation that faces many of them now would face them. it was a politically smart move even though the results have been disasterous for the nation since.

As usual, you want it both ways, you want to be able to believe that Hilary is incompetent and Machiavellian at the same time.

It just goes to show that liberals are more open minded than those to the right of center when it comes to understanding motivations.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

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

Again with the "Democrat" routine. [/quote]

Please don’t pretend that your recitation of the Democratic fable of Katrina is any but that, a partisan fable.

As with all fables Mikebutler222, there is a basis in fact. Are you sure you mean to use the word fable? Because it's actually a complementary sort of word in that fables come with morals and morals are generally seen as conveying a universal truth (you might try reading Aesop's fables someday).

Deny the truth as often as you wish Mikebutler222, it doesn't change the facts, only your own perception of them.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

"Thank you for providing the proof that the entire agenda behind ..."

I love how one of "Many fronts" is "code" for an "Entire agenda" in Mikebutler222's mind.

BWahahahahahaha!

[/quote]

Spare me, Whom, you did exactly what I said. You dumped bin Laden’s stated agenda, the one he’s talked about for better than a decade, then you tried to replace it with your shop-worn list of complaints about <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US foreign policy. THAT’S the reason you’re in denial about his agenda’s religious roots, it crowds out your “if we’d only” list of things you’d want us to do even  if bin Laden had never been born.

And if the US oil companies weren't doing business with the Saud family and the family  that was in power (in stead) had created a strong middle class in Saudi Arabia then Bin laden wouldn't have the soapbox to stand on or the unemployed millions with too much time on their hands to listen to him. Nor would he have the family billions at his disposal to fund his operations.

Must you always stop at the first shiney nugget you come to instead of digging deeper to see if there are any other multi faceted truths to be had?

Dust Bunny,

"If Radical Islamists aren't going to use nuclears on the US because they know that the consequence is glassification

They know no such thing.  They don't care about it either."

Take it up with Mikebutler222, he's the one who said it.

[quote=BondGuy] MikeB attaches terrorism to their religion in every post. [/quote]

Lunacy. I attach it to the TWISTED form of Islam THEY, THEMSELVES attach it to. Your refusal to take their word for it is one thing, suggesting I'm a racist for knowing enough of them to believe them is another.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Dust Bunny,

"If Radical Islamists aren't going to use nuclears on the US because they know that the consequence is glassification

They know no such thing.  They don't care about it either."

Take it up with Mikebutler222, he's the one who said it.

[/quote]

That's not a quote from me, Whom. That's your distortion. Be man enough to own up to it.