Copper theft

I want to have noted that Saddam Hussein was always noted to be more an enemy than a friend of Al Qaeda or Al Qaida (or howver that is spelled) ever since before the Clinton time attempt on WTC!

USA screws up by supporting enemies of our enemies even though they are also our enemies, and screws up by falsely assusing more-enemy-than-friend of our enemies to be friends of our enemies!

- Don Klipstein (Jr) ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Can we ever forget that photo of Cheney (was it?) shaking hands with Saddam? Maybe Bush holding hands with his Saudi prince will come back to haunt him one day.

That wasn't deregulation it was simply fraud

Like Somalia? Clinton tried that and it wasn't flowers they threw.

In real life we only invade countries that threaten Israel..

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 14:05:49 +0100, Eeyore Gave us:

You're an idiot.

It's not quite that high, according to a quick web search - it's around

Really makes you feel unwelcome, doesn't it?

- YD.

There are even more dramatic statistics in that demographic but we will never be able to do anything about it until we are allowed to have remedial program,s that are color blind. Everyttime they try helping troubled young men somebody gets their panties in a wad because black people are over-represented in the group. There is also the problem that "gangsta" is seen as a viable career choice.

bollocks.

First, its a misnomer - there can't be such a thing as a "war on terror", just as there is no "war on drugs", "war on crime", or other such nonsense. "War" only makes sense between two states. Call it a "fight against terror" and you might have something that *could* have a meaning, if only there were a better definition of "terror" than the current "anything Bush doesn't approve of".

Secondly, of course Eeyore has no idea how to do it - nobody else does either. There are plenty of people who know how to deal with terrorism

- several European countries have lived with, reduced or eliminated terrorist groups over the years (not that the American authorities ever thought to ask them for advice or experiences), but the current American idea of a "war on terror" is clearly unwinable. Pride and arrogance prevent them from stopping - as long as they continue, the "war" is not yet lost.

Thirdly, what actual realistic threat is there? It's not negligible, but it's not much - statistically speaking, terrorism is a very minor cause of death, even for soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan. Even if you assume that the "war" has saved the USA from an average of a 911 scale attack per year, the return on investment is tiny. If you'd made the same effort in a "war on road-deaths", or "war on cancer", we'd be in a very different situation.

I disagree. Suggesting a "war on ingrown toenails" instead of "go see a doctor" is a good parallel.

The terrorists often live in, or at least travel through, coutries that don't agree with their aims. "Good old police work" is what stops them. "Police work against terror" isn't as good of a sound bite as "war on terror" but is far more likely to yeld results.

Wow... Somalia moved from the east coast of Africa to the west? How did they pull that off?

No, the US had troops on the ground in Vietnam. The US was trying to take and hold ground. You need boots on the ground to hold land. If the goal isn't to hold land etc but rather just mess up someone's country, aircraft can do a nice job of it.

..made easier by the changes Reagan made.

Nonsense! We should exclude the donkey.