From: "Gary Britt" 

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

"Antti Kurenniemi"  wrote
in message news:410c1172{at}w3.nls.net...
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news:410bf21c$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >
> > More Good Stuff from Post Article:
> >
> >
> > Plans for peace'
> >
> > The most disturbing idea that Kerry launched, however,
> > came when he spoke of a message that he would send
> > to American troops on the first day of his presidency:
> > "You will never be asked to fight a war without a
> > plan to win the peace."
> >
> > Logically, this means: never.
>
> I think it's a good comment - I don't get the connection how you can say
> "logically, this means: never"? Surely one could have a plan
for not only
a
> war but for what to do after it, i.e. peace? Or is it that peace counts
not,
> so best not to bother even thinking about it?
>
>
> Antti Kurenniemi
>
>

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