"Rod Speed" writes:
Dan Espen wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote
(Don Klipstein) wrote
I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!
Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but has
gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!
The horror! Of course the fact that there hasn't been a (successful)
attempt on US soil since then is all outweighed by not finding OBL.
Come on guys.
There's no need for an attack on US soil.
Plenty of American's right there in the middle east as easy targets.
Yes, but its a lot harder to ensure that they dont get targetted in a place like Saudi etc.
Count total American losses and then figure out how well this is working.
The death toll isnt any higher than with accidents if Iraq hadnt been invaded.
Huh?
You're trying to say, if that bomb hadn't killed that soldier
he would have died in a traffic accident with the same frequency?
I must have misread what you posted.
It makes no sense at all.
It's not working, whether you count losses as bodies or losses as dollars.
Depends on how you define working. Saddam has been eliminated
and hasnt been replaced by someone who is just as bad.
Try to follow along.
We were attacked by Saudis.
Number of terrorists from Iraq were zero.
What does replacing one dictator with another have to
do with this?
Any fool can see that Iraq will immediately revert to
dictatorship when we leave.
In fact it's a total disaster.
Nope. Nothing like one either.
Still a repressive monarchy in Saudi Arabia.
Not enough troops to find the nuts in Afghanistan.
Total, complete, utter failure.