In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:
Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dan Espen wrote
Rod Speed wrote
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?
Yes, that is what I am actually saying. There is no 'trying' involved.
I must have misread what you posted.
It makes no sense at all.
Its a fact, quite surprising tho that fact is.
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and hasnt been replaced by someone who is just as bad.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.
Try retaking Bull****ting 101.
Following your lead, you are a dumb f**k.
We were attacked by Saudis.
Nope, quite a few of them were egyptians.
That is an IGNORANT lie.
15 of 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi
What matters is who lead each particular hijacking,
and that certainly wasnt exclusively saudis.
You're so full of ****.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm
two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt and one from Lebanon.
Those numbers arent universally accepted.
By certain dumb asses.
Your original is just plain wrong.
Number of terrorists from Iraq were zero.
Iraq did financially support a number of terrorists, particularly in
Palestine etc.
All Arabs are in support of Palestine, you idiot. Even many Americans
and some Israelis. Google up" Peace Now". What a dumb SOB.
What does replacing one dictator with another
The current top monkey isnt a dictator, he was elected in democratic
elections.
You mean like Bush?
Yep, he aint a dictator either.
No. He just stole two elections.
have to do with this?
Any fool can see that Iraq will immediately revert to dictatorship when
we leave.
You're so stupid that you havent even noticed that they had elections
and most likely will have more of those when the US leaves.
In fact it's a total disaster.
Nope. Nothing like one either.
Not according to the CIA.
Still a repressive monarchy in Saudi Arabia.
Nothing like a total disaster tho.
Define total disaster. If you lived there it would appear to be a total
disaster. Saddam had the place up and running 3 months after ther last
war. You don't know nothin;.
Not enough troops to find the nuts in Afghanistan.
Nothing like a total disaster tho.
Total, complete, utter failure.
You ignore the obvious.
Nothing like that. The talibums no longer run Afghanistan
and afghanistan is no longer a base for terrorist training.
How far in the sand do yo have your head? I'm sorry, that's not sand is
it? Isn't that painful?
But NATO doesn't want to play any more
Pig ignorant lie.
and attacks are on the rise.
And they arent in Iraq.
Yeah, both places.
Afghanistan report warns of 'failed state'
Still nothing like a total disaster. The talibums got the bums rush, very
comprehensively
indeed and even you should have noticed that Saddam ended up dead.
He knew too much, unlike you.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...an31,1,6606733.
story
Just the usual mindless pig ignorant silly stuff. And it doesnt even say that
its a total disaster anyway.
God, your stupid.
--
Billy
Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush