_BiB_

I suppose there's no chance that there are any African-American diehard Democrat racists out there either. That's OK, it's different when we talk about bigotry out of anyone that's not a WASP. then it's "rights".

Wow! Way cool dude! Oops, just dropped my slide rule.

Ain't that true? Oh, I bet you have cooties and boogars too.

I've always known you were "touched", but that's besides the point. Sounds like another one of them thar barfights a brewin'. You're still a couple behind me. I'll bring the bar.

Can you imagine what the students come away with?

Is this the petty miserable person thread? I'm a petty miserable person. I'm also a mega-****. Can I play?

Man, they got you again. Now your avatar is lying on it's side. Who's f'ing with you like this? Might need to contact the mods.

I invite you to read the "know it all" thread, unless you only read threads you post in. Some of the points of view you might be looking for might be there. Also, anyone watching would have seen the game playing by Germany coming long ago. Wait until France chimes in.

Everything I have posted may or may not be "correct", but it is certainly not "politically correct". I have very little confidence that America, and the world at large would accept our actions based on what I have laid out. As I said, this is very multi-layered and intertwined. There is a lot of high value economic interest in the region belonging to France, Germany, Russia and China. Those countries are never going to fully support something detrimental to their own economy and political interests. There's no morality here. If France thought it was in their best interest to help invade Iraq, they would have done so WMD or no WMD. France is VERY closely allied with us in other matters-such as President Bush's Proliferation Security Intitiative which is global cooperation effort to track and interdict the expansion of WMD capabilities and materials. France has also been very helpful in the "understated" War on Terror that one doesn't read about too much. This is where I begin to get aggravated with the political rhetoric. I honestly don't understand what new allies Kerry is going to bring to the table. The UN is a liability, not an asset. Check out Oil for Food and about 200 toothless resolutions. Many of the members of the UN either support or have a politcal/economic interest in a shift of power. There is also, and has been a global jealousy of the United States. We are the only Superpower. The European Union wants to create it's own, to counter us politically and economically. Chirac would love nothing better than to be the big dog. Why do you think Tony Blair is such a staunch supporter of ours? Everyone is working in their own self interest. When those interests match-you have an ally. When they don't? You don't have an ally. It's not nation against nation, it's situations against situations. Everyone that isn't Iran has a vested interest in curbing Islamic Terrorism. Ergo, most everyone is an ally. Joe the Fishmarket guy might not like us-but he is not important. What is important is which governments work with us, and which don't. That invites the "Oh, but world opinion is important" Well, no it's not. That's just the way things are.

There is a lot more at play right now than "military might". Iraq has center stage and all the media attention. The vast proponderance of GWOT activities are low key and much more associated with criminal type investigation and countermeasure than brute force. There are "quiet" interdictions that take place almost daily throughout the world. Most being conducted by our allies that so many of you seem to think do not exist and that Kerry will create. You apply the appropriate tools to the appropriate situation. Get over the idea that there is a quick solution. Oil is going to be the dominant economic force for a long time to come. Face it. Way it is. One can burn cow turds all they want here in the US, but is that going to make Europe, China and the rest of the world? No. Redirection of energy requirements may well be applied to a long term maintenance strategy looking decades down the road-but it has no bearing on the immediate situation-say from now through the next five to ten years.

You unwashed rabble rouser you.

We as a whole are our own worst enemy. None of this is politically correct, and the country is trying to find a way to make it that way. Not going to happen folks. You can't wish or soundbite it away. It's war, a very different kind of war and it's here. Rhetoric is not going to solve it. Playing footsies with the UN is not going to solve it-since they are complicit in it. We have to look out for our National interest whether the rest of the world likes it or not.

It does not take many operatives to conduct a strategic mission, such as 9/11. If you look into the backgrounds of the majority of the principles-they were not destitute. Several were well off. The mass suicide bomber crap is essentially a diversion, a ready means to counter precision guided US munitions and a psychological tool. They do though, contribute tactically part of a greater effort. No matter how you modernize and equalize, there are still going to be available and willing recruits ready to join the movement. In certain areas, this ideology is taught from early childhood and economic prosperity is not going to change an entrenched mindset to a significant degree. Another thing being missed here is the tactical methods being used in different theaters of operations. I can not go into the details of how AQ plans and conducts their operations, but I will say a significant change is that recently, the more successful attacks outside the middle east have not been conducted by suicidal operatives. They make for ready guided missiles in a desperation campaign within Iraq but that's pretty well it. The face of the war is once again changing.

I've outlined basically the primmer. This is a tremendously complex and multi-layered situation. It is very difficult to articulate to the American public, who for the most part politically are very narrowly focused and accustomed to receiving their information in very small doses. The WMD scenario was/is sound. right now, the most dangerous scenario is AQ either procuring or developing their own stockpile of WMD. Look how much damage they can do with 3-4 Boeings. In the months/weeks leading up to the invasion there was what looked like very sound, accurate information as to the types, locations and amounts of stockpiled Iraqi WMD. About two years ago, I was earmarked to lead one of the teams charged with exploiting the weapons sites-collecting and disposing of what was thought to be on-hand. I had a portfolio of locations complete with suspected types and amounts of material. Why? I had to plan for the logistics of getting the weapons from point A to point B for their ultimate disposal. If you knew what you were looking at, there would have been little doubt in your mind that there was a serious problem. I'm an operations person, not an intell analyst. I have little knowledge of how this info was put together. But you better believe it looked "good". From what I know of this business, there is no way this was a fabrication for political purposes. This was info that came from somewhere. I think this was a palatable "reason" for the invasion, an important primary cause. The WMD, however, are just one of several reasons to be there and continue to stay there. You also have to understand that there is a lot of information out there that the news organizations, and by extension the public, are not going to be privy to. That doesn't help the explanation "cause".

The economic malaise within the region makes for easier recruitment, and fuels propoganda. It is still not the root cause of the current "movement". People need to understand that there are goals and strategies here. They may be horrible to our sensibilities, but they are sound strategies. AQ may be nuts, but they are not stupid. They are extremely well organized, have learned to live and work within the cyberspace domain and are careful patient planners. Their operations security pretty well puts most developed nations to shame. The "no hope for the future" may be germaine to local uprising, but has little to nothing to do with the grand scheme. Once again, I mention moderate governments becoming the norm. There is more of a chance of individual success within a modernized moderate system than from within a totalitarian regime. Do not confuse the Palestinian situation with the overall pan-Islamic movement. Although there was financing and support given to Arafat from Iraq, the two are not related other than a mutual hatred of Israel. Anyway, that is not the current problem. The current movement IS primarily ideologically-religious based, with a comprehensive global strategy designed to get their way.

Read the rest of the post, buckshot. I was going to finish it from the office, but decided I had time before I went in.

There is a horrible lack of understanding here, bordering on dangerous. The stated primary goal of the Radical Islamic Fundamentalists is the establishment of a Pan Islamic "Calliphate" throughout the middle east and western Asia. The eventual desired goal is the establishment of Islam, their version throughout the world. Even they admit that "world domination" will take generations to accomplish, however they have taken strategic steps in that direction by closely allying with radical groups in the far east, most notably indonesia and in the Phillipines. Also, not to be ignored is the gradual arabification of Europe primarily through imigration into essentially liberal countries in Europe. To accomplish this goal, there are strategic priorities. The first and foremost is the removal of the Royal Saudi family from power. The holiest of holy sites lie in SA, and they perceive the Saudi Royals in charge as decadent secularists from an ideological poit of view, and they covet control of the oil reserves from a strategic point of view. To accomplish this, unfriendly western influence must be removed from the region, primarily American. In order for a basically criminal organization to work, such as Al Qaida and their associates, a base-a safe haven must be established from which operations can be safely planned and organized. To counter this, one has to project a serious amountof power locally to keep them on the defensive. They are being supported by friendly state actors in the region, most notably Iran and to a lesser extent Syria. Afghanistan was naturally the first target for us. Iraq was the logical second. Why? Iraq provided a tremendous amount of funding and support to many of these organizations. The available intelligence at the time indicated an active biological weapons research and production program (one of the greater priorities of GWOT is keeping WMD out of the hands of the "terrorists" as possession would help them level the playing field, and is also a goal of theirs). If you bother to look at a map, what sits directly between Iran and Syria? What is directly North of Saudi Arabia? If Saudi falls, it's game over. There will always be terrorism, there always has been. Never before has it taken this form. The goal will be to reduce it from a "normal" condition. This will only be accomplished by the establishment of strong moderate governments within the region willing and capable of policing their own trash. Get out of the mindset that this is about Iraq. It's a regional/global serious problem. Pakistan already has useable nuclear weapons. Pakistan could fall as well. Several players have active programs and admit to having chemical and biological weapons. How much of the world's oil supplies lie under these territories?What kind of world havoc can they wreak if allowed to ally under a fundamental radical Islamic banner? If this vision of theirs is allowed to unfold, they will essentially have the rest of the world as hostage. What are the ramifications to the world economy is the "Taliban" controls 80% of the oil, the lines of communication through the middle east and has nuclear weapons and long range ICBM's to back them up? Now, the concentrated effort is in Iraq. What local "insurgents" are fighting there are essentially tools. This isn't about Iraqi nationalism. Step two can not be undertaken with a couple of US Divisions sitting on the ground. In short, running willy nilly through the hills of Afghanistan does not address the problem, Mr. Kerry and friends. Mr. Kerry knows that-apparantly the friends don't. I can tell from his pitches that he's playing to the masses fed garbage by the soundbites. Once in office-if he has any sense of responsibility whatsoever, he's going to have to continue the same fight-which will morph and change as things go along. Right now the fight is on their soil, with us as the agressor-which is the way it should be. If we had been capable of entering WW2 in 1939, this probably wouldn't be happening now. Isolationist thinking hurt us then, and some folks remember their history.

I AM in a world of stevestojan!

Kevlar man, Kevlar.

Man, the 777 is a sweet aircraft. ANA uses them for flight 001 Reagan to Tokyo. They use 747 from Tokyo to Hong Kong. Apples and oranges for comfort.

Let me guess. Henry got stuffed, Drew ran around behind a Chinese fire drill for 45 minutes, pulled a couple out of his ass, got everyone's hopes up-then after being knocked silly started throwing the ball to the Cheerleaders. Defense kept them in the game until it mattered, then they folded. Bills lost the fourth game they could/should have won. Did I miss anything?

Eat some crabs for me. Dungeness. Mmmmmmmmmmm.

Who's "not the Poojer?" Wait a minute...I'm not...hey Pooj. You got any idea who isn't Poojer?

Your Avatar is upside down again. Somebody must be fuc-king with you.

You're doing pretty well for a rookie.