Bug Zapper+Bush=Brilliance!

[JustMissed]

From howstuffworks.com:

"A bug zapper, more formally known as an electronic insect-control system or electrical-discharge insect-control system, lures bugs into it and kills them with electricity. In this article, we will examine the parts of a bug zapper, learn how this device works and discuss the controversies surrounding its use. We'll also look at some other bug-control devices that may make your time outdoors more pleasant. "

I'm sure most of you have or know how a bug zapper works.

You hang it in your yard, plug it in and a light surrounded by an electrified screen lures the bugs in your yard and perimeter to the light and when they hit the screen--they are zapped and die.

You know not all the Islamic terrorist are special ops type fighters. Quite a few function like foot soliders and grunts while other are more specialized like those 9/11 terrorist.

What President Bush has done is to create a "bug zapper" enviroment in Iraq to lure the Islamic terrorist frighters that are "in the yard or in the neighbors's yard" into the trap and zap them.

Simply brilliant. There are examples of the same in the book "The Art of War".

When all is said and done, President Bush will have accompolished the following:

Freed the Iraqi people from a horrible tyrant

Established the third demorcracy in the middle east

Wiped out a large group of terrorist fighters(foot soldiers and grunt).

Wiped out a significant number of specialized terrorist.

Established a land base for future defeat of terrorism thereby reducing reliance on Saudi Arabia bases and support.

Maximize Iraqi oil production for the benefit of:
a. The Iraqi people
b. The USA to pay us back for our trouble and expense
c. The USA and Allies for a steady and stable oil supplier
d. USA and Allies' business interest involved in Iraq

You know what happens to you when you try to accompolish long range goals with short range thinking--you get your head handed to you.

Compare John Kerry's goals for Iraq with President George Bush's goals. In the long run, what is going to be better for the USA.

NOVEMBER 2-VOTE BUSH FOR PRESIDENT

JM:)

[JustRalph]

This theory has been postulated in some other forums. But the Bushies deny it. There are some who believe they deny it because admitting it would stop the "insurgency" into Iraq. I don't know, but if it was the plan all along...........history will reveal it..........

[JustMissed]

Good point Ralph. There are alot of things the Bush camp cannot discuss for national security reasons.

I am still puzzled as to why Kerry is not doing better in the polls.

I know it, you probably know it, and others know it, but OBL has probably been dead for months if not years. This would make pretty good campaign stuff but GB cannot open his mouth about this.

JM

[Tom]

And let us not forget who it was that financed the terrorists in Iraq....the UN, Russia, China, and France!
The very peopel sad sack Kerry seeks to suck up to to fight our war for us. The oil for food program distributed billions of dollars to our so-called allies while making Kafo Annon a rich man at the expense of countle thousands of lives and allowed SH to build h is real arsenal of WLD - weapons of limited destruction. Those guns that are killing Iraqs and Americans and Brits in Iraq today were bought thanks to the european and SH alliance - an alliance that funded and supports terrorism.
And Kerr yis just too damn stupid to see it. What a rube this dummy is.
What gets me is that this conspiracy is so blatantly document yet not one of the three stooge libs here ever talk about it, prefering instead to post anything the degreades our country, our presidnet, and our mission, for thier own ammusment or agenda. These guys are just sickening.
:mad:

[Equineer]

JustMissed,

There is also an alternate and opposing theory postulated by some respected military analysts:

It has been suggested that a trap was sprung on 9/11 by Al Qaeda... that 9/11 was intended to produce a furious response and provoke the U.S. into launching military incursions into predominantly Islamic nations.

From the perspective of international terrorists, it has been said that our invasion of Iraq may have seemed too good to be true... bin Laden, al-Zawahri, and al-Zarqawi may have celebrated when we invaded Iraq.

It is much easier and cheaper for the terrorists to attack us in Islamic nations than in America. Also, Saddam's elimination and the destabilization of Iraq were stated al Qaeda objectives. Bin Laden had repeatedly called for the assassination of Saddam as an infidel despot. Furthermore, bin Laden, al-Zawahri, and al-Zarqawi have also sworn to overthrow the current regimes in their homelands of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan.

Along with other enemies of Saddam, Al Qaeda may have played a significant role in planting intelligence misinformation about WMDs in Iraq and Saddam's alleged ties to 9/11... and misinformation from multiple sources is certainly plausible because an American invasion of Iraq clearly serves the agendas of several Middle East factions.

Many authoritative military strategists argue that massive military incursions, like Iraq, are counterproductive.

The irony is that we may be measuring success in a misguided manner.

Each militant Jihadist costs a pittance to train and maintain as compared to each American soldier. This inequity gets magnified when they are dispersed in huge Islamic populations and employ guerrilla tactics that require us to deploy many American soldiers to neutralize each Jihadist. Given this cost inequity, spending $-Millions on each kill/capture is no way to win a war if your enemy can successfully recruit from a significantly greater worldwide population base.

Furthermore, after each news report, we count Americans killed as tragedies, and enemies killed as victories. The opposite is not strictly how either the North Vietnamese or Jihadists have comprehended war news. Such enemies tend to digest their casualties up front when they mobilize forces to fight American troops.

For North Vietnamese regulars, the Ho Chi Minh Trail (a.k.a., Truong Son Trail) was the beginning of a death march unless they were lucky enough to survive until the end of that long conflict. Essentially, it was understood that they were dead men walking when they said goodbye to their families.

The Jihadist ideology is even more extreme. Joining al Qaeda is equivalent to volunteering for death, but this dovetails with fundamental Jihadist dogma that death is the only true doorway to salvation and pious happiness. In the Western World, the Christian equivalent to this fundamental dogma has been withering since the 18th century.

[JustRalph]

equine

75% of Al quada types are supposedly dead or in prison now. No more attacks here........despite several opportunities.........

I will stick with the "Pursue and eliminate" doctrine that Bush has instituted for now. Hunt them down where they live........and kill them in front of their countrymen...........

speaking of hunting them down and killing them........

http://www.homehorseplayer.com/apachehit.mpeg

[boxcar]

JustRalph wrote:

75% of Al quada types are supposedly dead or in prison now. No more attacks here........despite several opportunities.........

I will stick with the "Pursue and eliminate" doctrine that Bush has instituted for now. Hunt them down where they live........and kill them in front of their countrymen...........

I couldn't agree more, JR. Take the war to the murderous thugs -- right to where they live instead of having them bring it to where we live.

If Kerry is elected, he'll no doubt adopt a reactionary police policy, instead of a proactive military one. Instead of aggresively rooting out the terrorists as we're now doing, Kerry's more passive policy would allow the murderers to regroup, reorganize and regain lost strength.
Bush's policy is to go after the thugs and to basically terminate them with extreme prejudice; whereas Kerry would adopt a more "sensitive" policy toward them and one he no doubt will think is more sensible.

I love Dennis Prager's oped piece today, which focuses on Kerry's most frequently used argument against the war, which is: The war is a big "mistake". But as Prager incisively, logically and convincingly points out, such an argument unwittingly undermines the claim that Iraq has become a den of terrorists because we're there. In order for Kerry's argument to contain even an iota of credibility, it must make certain underlying assumptions which are illogical, unfounded, unreasonable and entirely ill-conceived. Since Prager lays out his case better than I could, here's the link:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20041012.shtml

Boxcar

[JustMissed]

Excellant points fellows. A good discussion.

Looks like the election may well come down to dove v. hawk.

JM

[boxcar]

Thanks, JM.

One other thing about "mistakes" before I forget to mention another huge Kerry blunder. After Kerry got on this "Iraq is a mistake" kick, some reporter or interviewer asked him a logical and reasonable follow-up question to the effect: Are our troops, then, fighting and dying for a mistake (to paraphrase the question). Kerry got testy at that question, evidently not liking it very much. The best he could reply at that particular time is "don't put words in my mouth..." He adamantly refused to give a straightforward, simple answer to a perfectly legitimate follow-up question to "Iraq is a mistake" position. However, does it not follow logically that if Bush's war in Iraq is a "mistake", then our troops over there are dying needlessly due to that presidential decision to go to war? But how can a wannabe commander-in-chief tell his troops that their comrades are dying unnecessarily because they shouldn't have even been there in the first place!? Once again, this Moron has put himself between a rock and hard place...much the same way he did at the convention when he saluted everyone and told us that he's "reporting to duty".

Boxcar

[Tom]

JR, G-R-E-A-T video.
THAT is what our military should be doing around the globe, 24-7.
They got Ji-hahd, we got Ka-BOOM!
Like the Israeli helicopter that was sitting outside the front door of the mosque that terroist leader was in, the guy in the wheelchar.....who woulda thyunk he would meet allah so soon after vespers! :D

Maybe a few hundred public retaliations like theses and these sand suckers would think twice. Or not. I'm nuetral on that.;)