Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 16 Jan 2007 12:49 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <2860f$45ace72e$49ecf70$27178(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > [....] > >>A contractor with 20K employees sealing a border could get it >>done pretty quickly. > > > I doubt it. They other guys will be busily unsealing it the whole time. > > > >>Giving a relative 50% efficiency factor >>for military troops doing the same work still provides us with >>a 10,000 employee contractor sealing the border. That, my friend, >>is a HUGE contractor by anyone's standards, and can get a lot >>of work done post haste. > > > There is more than merely "a lot" of border to block. > > > >>Besides, it isn't all about fences, it is more about land mines. > > > They have sheep. The land mines will be cleared in short order. > > > >>>In any >>>case, your idea isn't going to be tried. Bush is telling them to paint on >>>bullseyes and stand on street corners. >> >>Mores the pity. > > > Yes. Even though I disagree that your suggestion would work, at least you > are suggesting something new that if if was given enough troops may > actually work. As it is Bush is only making matters worse while trying to > make sure that it is the next president that gets the blame. Bush isn't very bright. "Trying" to solve issues only counts if what you're trying actually works. While I think having this strong military presence in the middle east is the right thing I think that for reasons other than the administration concerns itself with, whatever that might be. Except for that fool in Iran most of the sabre rattling in the middle east has stopped for the moment. We need to buy off North Korea for another decade. That's easy enough if we can just keep Texans away from the problem. In fact if we can get the cowboy mentality away from middle eastern problems we'll start making real headway. Taking an aggressive posture with middle eastern problems doesn't necessarily mean agreeing with the current administration. I agree with some parts of it.
From: unsettled on 16 Jan 2007 13:02 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <af492$45ace7ef$49ecf70$27200(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > [....] > >>Is the glass half empty or half full? > > > Or: > > The glass is twice as big as needed. Better than too small to do the job. Turns out nothing is ideal anyway.
From: Eeyore on 16 Jan 2007 13:05 unsettled wrote: > We need to buy off North Korea for another decade. Why a decade specifically ? Graham
From: unsettled on 16 Jan 2007 13:06 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:eoilbd$8qk_003(a)s961.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >>In article <C6OdnargkYJ9FTbYnZ2dnUVZ8smonZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:eodgi5$8qk_005(a)s849.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > > <snip> > >>>>I'm starting to think whether the Constitution has assumed that >>>>the only kinds of war can be the European-style in which the >>>>conflict is clearly nation against nation. I'm wondering if >>>>any Constitutional scholars have thought about a war that can't >>>>be nation against nation. >>> >>>Do you mean like the war of American Independence? The American Civil War >>>etc? >> >>No. > > > Yet they were both wars which were not "nation against nation" in the sense > you rail against. > > Your dismissal of the US Constitution on the above grounds is baseless. If it is not a "war" then it is a "police action" and doesn't have any constitutional constraints. snip
From: T Wake on 16 Jan 2007 13:08
"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:8ee2$45ad1434$49ecff1$28200(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:eoilbd$8qk_003(a)s961.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >>>In article <C6OdnargkYJ9FTbYnZ2dnUVZ8smonZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:eodgi5$8qk_005(a)s849.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >> <snip> >> >>>>>I'm starting to think whether the Constitution has assumed that >>>>>the only kinds of war can be the European-style in which the >>>>>conflict is clearly nation against nation. I'm wondering if >>>>>any Constitutional scholars have thought about a war that can't >>>>>be nation against nation. >>>> >>>>Do you mean like the war of American Independence? The American Civil >>>>War >>>>etc? >>> >>>No. >> >> >> Yet they were both wars which were not "nation against nation" in the >> sense you rail against. >> >> Your dismissal of the US Constitution on the above grounds is baseless. > > If it is not a "war" then it is a "police action" and doesn't have > any constitutional constraints. What does this have to do with the above? |