4000 americans killed in iraq in 5 years. 4000 Americans killed on highways every 5 weeks!!!!!!

"Dave Head" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:08:23 -0700 (PDT), "
> > wrote:
>
>>On Mar 24, 10:58 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
> wrote:
>>> But which problem do the idiotic idiots here at usenet care about
>>> most.???
>>
>>fundamentally it's a control vs can't control issue, for instance if a
>>satellite was in orbit over the US and randomly killed one American
>>every 5 weeks with a high power laser all the money and attention
>>(usenet chatter) would be spent on solving that problem, the number of
>>lives killed is almost irrelevant
>
> It only appears to be a controllable problem.
>
> If we pack up and leave Iraq tomorrow, the radical islamists will feel
> victorious, and simply launch more attacks... HERE!
>

Oh bull****. The radicals who want to attack us here will try whether we
are in Iraq or not. Being there just swells their ranks.

> We would likely end up losing more Americans in a few hours than many
> times the
> number of troops that have died in Iraq in the last 5 years. It'd only
> take a
> stolen or purchased Russian suitcase nuke, or maybe a truckload of any of
> several easily-produced deadly gases, or maybe a pile of anthrax,
> smallopox,
> botulinus, or some other screwball disease.

And you think that the fact we're in Iraq is what prevents this from
happening?

Bwaaa haaa haaa haaa. There are no Russian suitcase nukes. If there were,
you'd have noticed a mushroom cloud already. They're an urban legend.

Smuggling a truckload of poison gas in to the U.S. isn't exactly easy, and
weaponizing anthrax is pretty complex. Really, you think our presiding over
a religious sectairian civil war in Iraq stops radical Islamaists from
carrying out an attack on the U.S.? As opposed to reassigning those hundred
thousand troops to protecting our borders, airports, ports, and coastlines?

What a ****ing moron.


Bo Raxo

In article >, Arif Khokar wrote:
>Dave Head wrote:
>
>> If we pack up and leave Iraq tomorrow, the radical islamists will feel
>> victorious, and simply launch more attacks... HERE!
>
>So why aren't they doing that already? Is there some magical force that
>keeps them out of the homeland now that would no longer exist if we
>weren't in Iraq?

That's sort of like pointing out that while the military is being
consumed in Iraq the borders are wide open with Shrub allowing mexican
trucks to come right in and roam the nation (IMO probably without so
much as cargo inspection).

Of course the 'attacks' are motivated by US foreign policy and military
action in the middle east. Ending US interference in the region would
very likely end the attacks. Those hopeless people would then attack
those governments the US has been proping up for all these years. By not
propping up those governments the US removes its self from being the
reason they are hopeless.

In article >, Bo Raxo wrote:

>Bwaaa haaa haaa haaa. There are no Russian suitcase nukes. If there were,
>you'd have noticed a mushroom cloud already. They're an urban legend.

I don't think they are an urban legend, IMO they really did exist at one
time. However they required intensive maintenance with specialized
equipment and trained techs to remain operational. Basically by the time
any 'terrorist' may have gotten one, it had all the destructive
capabilities of a brick. It's maximium damage would have come from
bashing a person over the head with it. In other words, a standard
garden shovel is more of threat than any remaining 'Russian suitcase
nukes'.

>Smuggling a truckload of poison gas in to the U.S. isn't exactly easy, and
>weaponizing anthrax is pretty complex.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...my-strain.html

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:27:10 GMT, Arif Khokar > wrote:

>Dave Head wrote:
>
>> If we pack up and leave Iraq tomorrow, the radical islamists will feel
>> victorious, and simply launch more attacks... HERE!
>
>So why aren't they doing that already?

All their resources, financial, material, and human are focused on attempting
to win in Iraq. Additionally, they have FEWER human resources because not as
many are ready to sign up to what is rightly perceived as the losing side.

> Is there some magical force that
>keeps them out of the homeland now that would no longer exist if we
>weren't in Iraq?

Yep - but its not magical. Or, you might think it is if it comes screaming out
of the sky at you at mach 2 and runs a hellfire missile up your ass. That's
what Al Qaeda in Iraq feels about American Military capability now.

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:30:03 -0500, (Brent
P) wrote:

>In article >, Arif Khokar wrote:
>>Dave Head wrote:
>Of course the 'attacks' are motivated by US foreign policy and military
>action in the middle east.

The attacks are motivated by the desires of the enemy to get control of the
entire middle east and all its oil. If you think anything else, you've never
learned about "following the money."

>Ending US interference in the region would
>very likely end the attacks. Those hopeless people would then attack
>those governments the US has been proping up for all these years.

Yeah, they would. You WANT Osama Bin Laden in control of Saudi Arabia, Iran,
Kuwait, etc. etc.???

>By not
>propping up those governments the US removes its self from being the
>reason they are hopeless.

And removes ourselves from a vital supply of oil. You want $9 / gallon
gasoline? Abandoning the middle east looks like one way to get it.

In article >,
Brent P > wrote:
>
>Of course the 'attacks' are motivated by US foreign policy and military
>action in the middle east. Ending US interference in the region would
>very likely end the attacks.

Thank you, Neville Chamberlain.

OK, suppose the US pulls out entirely. Radical Islamists take over
Iraq (including the 9th province), Afghanistan, and anywhere else they
don't already hold. Then they attack Israel (no longer backed by the
US, remember?). Assuming Israel doesn't go nuclear on their asses, a
whole ****load of Arabs get killed but they eventually overwhelm
Israel by the numbers. OK, so they've defeated Israel -- now who is
the Great Satan? Oh, right, the United States. So the attacks on the US
resume, this time with open state backing. This is a good idea?
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >, Bo Raxo wrote:
>
>>Bwaaa haaa haaa haaa. There are no Russian suitcase nukes. If there
>>were,
>>you'd have noticed a mushroom cloud already. They're an urban legend.
>
> I don't think they are an urban legend, IMO they really did exist at one
> time. However they required intensive maintenance with specialized
> equipment and trained techs to remain operational. Basically by the time
> any 'terrorist' may have gotten one, it had all the destructive
> capabilities of a brick. It's maximium damage would have come from
> bashing a person over the head with it. In other words, a standard
> garden shovel is more of threat than any remaining 'Russian suitcase
> nukes'.
>

There is a good chance you are right about that, I've heard this theory
before. Although personally I find it hard to see such a centrally
controlled regime like the Soviets creating such an incredibly destructuve
weapon that could get out of their control. They were all about command and
control, and their technologies reflected it. American astronauts flew
their craft, for example, while Soviet cosmonauts were basically cargo in an
automated machine that flew itself. So the idea of a suitcase nuke really
goes against the grain of their technological asthete.

>>Smuggling a truckload of poison gas in to the U.S. isn't exactly easy, and
>>weaponizing anthrax is pretty complex.
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/...my-strain.html
>

Same strain, yes. Weaponized: quite different. That's a process to mill
it to a very specific and consistent size. A little too big or a little too
small and it's about as dangerous as moldy bread.

That's what so many people missed when the bull**** term "weapons of mass
destruction" was coined. An operational nuke is compact and not that hard
to deliver - a cargo container or a small boat will do the job. Chemical
weapons require large amounts to create mass destruction and a distribution
mechanism - say, smuggle several thousand gas-filled artillery shells, not
easy. Biological weapons are even more tricky - sure, you can grow the bug.
But getting it in to a form that will do damage and/or distributing it is
not easy. If it were, we'd have already seen large scale successful attacks
with bio weapons. Instead, all we've seen is a handful of people made sick
via doctored mail packets, and IIRC two deaths.


Bo Raxo

"Dave Head" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:30:03 -0500,
> (Brent
> P) wrote:
>
>>In article >, Arif Khokar wrote:
>>>Dave Head wrote:
>>Of course the 'attacks' are motivated by US foreign policy and military
>>action in the middle east.
>
> The attacks are motivated by the desires of the enemy to get control of
> the
> entire middle east and all its oil. If you think anything else, you've
> never
> learned about "following the money."
>

The attacks have myriad motives. You think what motivates Osama is the same
as what motivates a suicide bomber? You think the suicide bomber is
following the money?

There will always be a small band of extremists like Osama. What gives him
bigger numbers and financial support is the rage engendered by the U.S.
invasion. Also didn't help that we took a stable country, disbanded the
security forces, and left the armories and weapons depots unguarded.
Suddenly you had several hundred thousand men trained in using weapons out
of work, ****ed off, and with access to massive amounts of explosives and
weapons from looted weapons dumps.

Not good.

>>Ending US interference in the region would
>>very likely end the attacks. Those hopeless people would then attack
>>those governments the US has been proping up for all these years.
>
> Yeah, they would. You WANT Osama Bin Laden in control of Saudi Arabia,
> Iran,
> Kuwait, etc. etc.???
>

Uh, do you grasp the difference between Shia and Sunni when you talk about
Osama in charge of Iran?

Your view on this is hopelessly simplistic. Our invasion of Iraq has been a
great recruiting tool for Al Qaeda and strengthened it, it's obvious and
even the publicly released portions of CIA intelligence estimates agree on
this.

>>By not
>>propping up those governments the US removes its self from being the
>>reason they are hopeless.
>
> And removes ourselves from a vital supply of oil. You want $9 / gallon
> gasoline? Abandoning the middle east looks like one way to get it.

Pulling out of Iraq is not abandoning the Middle East. Did you notice what
happened to the price of oil and gas since we invaded Iraq? The price of
oil doubled.

The several hundred billion dollars we've spent on the Iraq war - we could
have spent some of that figuring out new energy sources, getting better
mileage, investing in technology and infrastructure to get us off of Middle
East oil. Instead, we spend about $30,000 per American in order to double
the price of oil, turn a secular stable Middle East country in to an
unstable one in a religious civil war, and prove to many that Osama's claims
that we want to occupy Muslim lands might be true. What do you think
happens when Arabs hear a leading American presidential candidate (McCain)
say we may be occupying Iraq for the next hundred years?


Bo Raxo

In article >, Bo Raxo wrote:

>weapon that could get out of their control. They were all about command and
>control, and their technologies reflected it. American astronauts flew
>their craft, for example, while Soviet cosmonauts were basically cargo in an
>automated machine that flew itself. So the idea of a suitcase nuke really
>goes against the grain of their technological asthete.

I can see that. Although, governments are rather silly. I can see them
making the suitcase nukes and securing them in such a manner as to defeat
their entire purpose because of that very mentality you mention.

>> http://www.newscientist.com/article/...my-strain.html

>Same strain, yes. Weaponized: quite different. That's a process to mill
>it to a very specific and consistent size. A little too big or a little too
>small and it's about as dangerous as moldy bread.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...1/140757.shtml Goes
over the very aspects that go into what is weaponized and what is not.

>with bio weapons. Instead, all we've seen is a handful of people made sick
>via doctored mail packets, and IIRC two deaths.

I think it was more than two, but a small number none the less and it
doesn't change the point you are making.
( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi3sYzDsSGI says 5 ) Most everything is
overblown by the government and the media for their own purposes. Like the
'bird flu'.

In article >, Bo Raxo wrote:

>The several hundred billion dollars we've spent on the Iraq war - we could
>have spent some of that figuring out new energy sources, getting better
>mileage, investing in technology and infrastructure to get us off of Middle
>East oil. Instead, we spend about $30,000 per American in order to double
>the price of oil, turn a secular stable Middle East country in to an
>unstable one in a religious civil war, and prove to many that Osama's claims
>that we want to occupy Muslim lands might be true. What do you think
>happens when Arabs hear a leading American presidential candidate (McCain)
>say we may be occupying Iraq for the next hundred years?

The neo-con idiots think it does the economy good. From Dear Leader Bush
endorsing the broken window theory (
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/019467.html ) to other
neo-cons saying that all that money ****ed away on war is a good thing (
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/020163.html )