From: "Antti Kurenniemi" 

You're joking.


Antti Kurenniemi

"Gary Britt"  wrote in message
news:410c14b5$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> The article itself if you go to the link answers your questions pretty
well,
> imho.  One of these points is that there is a difference between starting
to
> think about what to do after the war is won with having as Kerry says a
> "Plan to handle the post war" BEFORE even beginning to fight the war.
Since
> all plans regarding war and its results and effects go out the window once
> combat begins its impossible to have a detailed plan for the post war
BEFORE
> the war has begun.  Since Kerry says he must have a detailed plan for the
> post war before he will go to war, the logical conclusion is that he will
> never go to war.  Kerry and the democrats are the grown up anti-war
hipsters
> from the 60s and they believe America is bad, any use of force is bad,
> freeing any country by force is bad, communism wasn't so bad, etc etc.
> Despite all the show lies at the convention, Kerry made it clear he won't
> attack anyone until people in America are killed.  He will never protect
> these people by decisive pre-emptive action before they are killed.  His
> statements after the convention about wanting to put Usama Bin Laden on
> trial in the USA shows he thinks of terrorists even bin laden as a
criminal
> matter and not a WAR matter.  The opposition leader of the enemy who has
> declared war on the USA isn't required to have any kind of trial or
criminal
> proceeding in the USA.  You just capture or kill the guy, and should he
not
> be killed you merely take him to a prison camp and keep him there forever,
> if necessary.  No trial or hearing is or should be required because its a
> matter of war not a matter of a mere criminal act.
>
> Gary

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5