pinions of buddy don: flypaper? then who is the fly?

ye dun herd it sed minny a time that we are fitin them terrists over thar sos we dont have to fite em over here. we are keepin on the offents, takin the fite to them. mr bush sed the same thang this weekend in his radio address:

"We will fight until the enemy is defeated. We will stay on the offence, fighting the terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them at home."

thays sum that has called iraq 'flypaper,' witch that means them terrists is lack flies. fer the analgy to wurk, them terrists cums to iraq n gits stuck thar n caint leave to attack folks in other places.

as jake says at the end of the sun also rises, hemingways novel bout the lost generayshun frum worl war one, 'isn't it pretty to think so?'

point is, ye kin say whut ye lack, but this heres one analgy that aint wurkin. heres why:

1. kin them terrists leave whenever they wonta?

   KUWAIT CITY: A military clampdown on terrorists in Iraq would push them to instead attack neighbouring countries, the spokesman of the Iraqi government warned in remarks published on Sunday.
   
   Laith Kubba told Al Qabas newspaper that Iraq was now a “big school” for terrorism, and militant battles with the US military would only make them export their activities. “And certainly, neighbouring countries would be the closest for those terrorists to spread in,” he was quoted as saying. Kubba told the newspaper in a telephone interview that terrorists were still crossing into Iraq from Syria and Saudi Arabia, despite claims from both countries that they were doing their best to control their borders.

2. kin we? mr bush is purty clear on that:

   With polls showing that 6 in 10 Americans want to start pulling out American troops and with several dozen members of Congress now calling for withdrawal of the 140,000 U.S. forces, Bush was emphatic.
   
   "There are not going to be any timetables," the president said. "I mean, I told this to the prime minister: We are there to complete a mission, and it's an important mission. A democratic Iraq is in the interests of the United States of America, and it's in the interests of laying the foundation for peace.
   
   "And if that's the mission, then why would you say to the enemy, you know, 'Here's a timetable; well, just go ahead and wait us out.' It doesn't make any sense to have a timetable."

3. so who is trapped in the fly paper? looks lack tiz us on a counta of ifn we leave, thays horrbull problems that wood result:
   
   
   • civil war:

     In Iraq, it is reported, the likelihood of civil war is almost certain if the United States pulled out U.S. troops, and the idea of democracy in the Mideast would be certainly dead.

   • them insurgents wood win:

     So why not just leave?
     
     Well, first, because it guarantees failure. The insurgency -- a coalition of Baathist diehards and foreign terrorists -- has proved surprisingly resilient. Setting a date would basically announce: Hey guys, hold out until October 2006, and you're home free.

   • sum say gas prices wood rise to as high as $5 a gallon (witch, thats about whut them folks in europe pay now):

     Oil hits $120 a barrel.
     
     That's the headline from a recent oil shock wave simulation done by energy experts. Their work raises troubling questions about what could happen if instability in Iraq significantly upsets the already tenuous global oil market.

thays a passel of other reasons: twood hurt troop morale, twood make us look lack a paper tiger in the worl, twood mean all that money wuz wasted, twood mean all them amurkins died fer nuthin, yew name it.

so it seems lack thonly choice we gut is to keep on payin $5 billion of our tax dollars a munth to keep in the fite.

so who is caught in the flypaper?

also, these folks we are fitin are not honorabull men n women who make deals n stick to em. so who could bleeve we git a deal whar ifn we fite em over thar, they wont fite us over here?

nuther thang -- tiz a foolish coach who ignores defents:

FEW OUTSIDE the usual band of lobbyists and inside players noticed, but just three weeks ago, a Senate committee cut the budget for rail and mass transit security in this country by one-third.

This action by the Senate's appropriators, reducing next year's budget to $100 million from $150 million this year, might have made some sense if there were evidence that it would have no impact on security.

However, the opposite is the case and has been for more than three years of inexcusable neglect and conniving between the Bush administration and its corporate buddies.

In the wake of last week's horror in London, it's a reasonable assumption that politicians here will scramble to restore the money, but even if that happens this summer, it is only a drop in the bucket.

Two years ago, the American Public Transport Association surveyed its transit agency members and uncovered about $6 billion in unmet needs. They do not lust for high-tech toys, but they need surveillance cameras for trains and stations, radio communications equipment, technology to control access to sensitive locations and to locate moving trains instantly -- the infrastructure of rapid response and protection.

Instead, the evidence shows an airport-fixated domestic security system that has little relation to real threat. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, some $250 million has been spent on rail and transit security, compared to more than $18 billion on air.

so we spend $5 billion a month on the war whar our own cia tells us terrists are gettin trainin, recruitin material n the chants to attack our military. we dont have moren $100 million to perteck the 60 million folks that rides publick transportayshun everday.

nuff sed fer one day. i gut a bus to catch -- publick transport doin its job, perteckted or not!