"Oren" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 00:06:43 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

Bush left our country of 2 useless wars,

Apparently you've forgotten that we were attacked.


I remember were I was when I got the call.

destabilized the mid east,

News flash, genius boy: the Middle East has *never* been stable.


THEM sons a beaches can't even grow a healthy green lawn.

removing saddam was a terrible move,

Removing the most bloodthirsty dictator since Stalin was a "terrible
move"?
You're an idiot.


I ought to have wanted to kill that " bloodthirsty dictator". Remember
the day he sat a hostage child on his lap, boasted to world on world
media?

I would have personally disposed of him, but I wasn't in charge.


They need to do a celebrity death match. GW kicks ass!

They need to do a celebrity death match. GW kicks ass!-

george bush sent probably a million to death.

military on both sides, innocent civilians, and a smattering of
executed prisoners.

there should be a special place in hell for him...........

unless god takes pity on the clueless and stupid.

OP should attach a GPS tracker to each can

You've *got* more money than sense.

the OP wasnt serious and neither was me

I finally replaced my trash dumpster which had disappeared. but i
never leave it at the curb. ever

Have you noticed how many people believe their own congress
critter is doing a great job, while at the same time
thinking the Prez is incompetent?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"The Daring Dufas" wrote
in message ...

I never cease to be amazed at how some people give the
President, any
President of any party, powers that he doesn't have. They
can not get
it through their thick skulls that it's 535 disparate
deranged goof
balls who make the laws. I suppose it's so they can blame
one guy for
every problem because it's so much simpler for simple minds
to grasp.

TDD

Probably some Obama supporter. Who would prefer us to
recycle everything.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Clot" wrote in message
...
For a thread that started out mostly misunderstood, it
sure has grown
legs.

But who nicked the trashcan?

The Daring Dufas wrote:
(snip)

I never cease to be amazed at how some people give the President, any
President of any party, powers that he doesn't have. They can not get
it through their thick skulls that it's 535 disparate deranged goof
balls who make the laws. I suppose it's so they can blame one guy for
every problem because it's so much simpler for simple minds to grasp.

TDD

At last, something we can agree on.

--
aem sends...

wrote:
OP should attach a GPS tracker to each can
You've *got* more money than sense.

the OP wasnt serious and neither was me

I finally replaced my trash dumpster which had disappeared. but i
never leave it at the curb. ever


Thankfully, I live in a neighborhood where stuff seldom grows legs. I
have a day job, so waiting for the trash truck and meeting them is not
an option. They can show up anytime from 0600 to about 1400, depending
on how many times they have to go empty the packer truck that week. I
push it out when I get home from work on Thursday, and when I get home
Friday, I check to make sure it got emptied, and pull it back up the
hill to the notch in the bush beside the garage door where it lives.

--
aem sends...

"aemeijers" wrote in message
...
wrote:
OP should attach a GPS tracker to each can
You've *got* more money than sense.

the OP wasnt serious and neither was me

I finally replaced my trash dumpster which had disappeared. but i
never leave it at the curb. ever


Thankfully, I live in a neighborhood where stuff seldom grows legs. I have
a day job, so waiting for the trash truck and meeting them is not an
option. They can show up anytime from 0600 to about 1400, depending on how
many times they have to go empty the packer truck that week. I push it out
when I get home from work on Thursday, and when I get home Friday, I check
to make sure it got emptied, and pull it back up the hill to the notch in
the bush beside the garage door where it lives.

--
Yup. Same here, except they pickup between 5:30-6am on Monday morning. Yeah,
right, I'm going to get up and meet them on a road where I can't even see my
neighbors' houses if there are leaves on the trees. Let someone steal the
giant trash can. Who cares? It belongs to the garbage hauler anyway.

wrote in message
...

They need to do a celebrity death match. GW kicks ass!-

george bush sent probably a million to death.

military on both sides, innocent civilians, and a smattering of
executed prisoners.

there should be a special place in hell for him...........

unless god takes pity on the clueless and stupid.

I was talking about Celebrity Death Match GW. He should battle the Axis of
Evil tag team with Cheney and Rice.

"Master Betty" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

They need to do a celebrity death match. GW kicks ass!-

george bush sent probably a million to death.

military on both sides, innocent civilians, and a smattering of
executed prisoners.

there should be a special place in hell for him...........

unless god takes pity on the clueless and stupid.

I was talking about Celebrity Death Match GW. He should battle the Axis of
Evil tag team with Cheney and Rice.


Forgot....Cheney could accidentally shot GW in the face with a shotgun.

"Clot" wrote in message
...
For a thread that started out mostly misunderstood, it
sure has grown
legs.

But who nicked the trashcan?

Stormin Mormon wrote:
Probably some Obama supporter. Who would prefer us to
recycle everything.

In article , " wrote:
On Jan 16, 7:06=EF=BF=BDpm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article .=
com, " wrote:

created the patriot act

False. Back to grade school civics class for you, fool. *Congress* makes =
laws,
not the President.

bush pushed for patriot act warrantless wiretapping torture and
indefinite detention. no doubt in hitlers time you wuld of supported
him too/

None of which would have made any difference at all if Congress had not passed
the laws.
No point in continuing this. You clearly have *no* idea at all what you're
talking about.-


boy thats sure true of you

Like I said, genius boy: go back to grade school civics class. Come back when
you've figured out which branch of government is responsible for making laws.

In article , Oren wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:53:24 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

For a thread that started out mostly misunderstood, it sure has grown legs.

OP should attach a GPS tracker to each can

You've *got* more money than sense.

That's inevitable.

In article , " wrote:

They need to do a celebrity death match. GW kicks ass!-

george bush sent probably a million to death.

military on both sides, innocent civilians, and a smattering of
executed prisoners.

there should be a special place in hell for him...........

unless god takes pity on the clueless and stupid.

You should be all set, then.

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:30:52 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:53:24 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

For a thread that started out mostly misunderstood, it sure has grown legs.

OP should attach a GPS tracker to each can

You've *got* more money than sense.

Looks like he's got you beat on two fronts.

wrote:

Removing the most bloodthirsty dictator since Stalin was a "terrible
move"?
You're an idiot.


Yes, it was a stupid move. Saddam was one of the factors holding down
Bin Laden, aqnd was essentially no threat at all to the U.S. Removing
him was a big favor to one of our REAL enemies.

Huh?

* Sadaam in power = we get attacked
* Sadaam gone = we don't get attacked

Look what we did to Sadaam! We invaded his country, evicted him from his
homes, confiscated his fortune, exiled his family, imprisoned his friends
and co-workers, killed his children, and ultimately got his skanky ass
hanged.

These consequences HAVE to be a deterrent to other dictators. If they're
rational....

Never mind.

wrote:

Apparently you've forgotten that we were attacked.

not by iraq, and once bush decided to remove saddam he largey ignored
afghanistan'


Once the Taliban was kicked out of Afghanistan, there really wasn't much
left to do there.

It's taken a few years for the Taliban to re-group, re-arm, and re-surgent.

wrote:
They need to do a celebrity death match. GW kicks ass!-

george bush sent probably a million to death.

military on both sides, innocent civilians, and a smattering of
executed prisoners.

there should be a special place in hell for him...........

unless god takes pity on the clueless and stupid.

Regrettably, some were accidents, some were mistakes. Most, some say, simply
needed killin'. An example would be the "technicals" in a Toyota pick-up
with a .50 caliber machine gun attacking an Abrams main battle tank. Every
time that happened, the average I.Q. of the Iraq nation went up.

Or maybe not. Many of these unorganized fighters came from outside Iraq.

Oren wrote:
I have had cans blow down the road on occasion, that I needed to
recover. Nothing like this example!

*
This message is to the person who stole my new trashcan this Tuesday.
Although I will probably never see my trashcan again, I want to let
you know how I feel.


[...]

Get a new can (or find your old one).

Attach it to a 50' 3/8" cable which is securely anchored to a block of
concrete buried in the ground.

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 14:43:04 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:

Removing the most bloodthirsty dictator since Stalin was a "terrible
move"?
You're an idiot.


Yes, it was a stupid move. Saddam was one of the factors holding down
Bin Laden, aqnd was essentially no threat at all to the U.S. Removing
him was a big favor to one of our REAL enemies.

Huh?

* Sadaam in power = we get attacked
* Sadaam gone = we don't get attacked


Huh? No relation between those two things whatsoever.


Water must be a deadly poison. Everyone who drinks it dies.

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 14:36:27 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

bush pushed for patriot act warrantless wiretapping torture and
indefinite detention. no doubt in hitlers time you wuld of supported
him too/

None of which would have made any difference at all if Congress had not passed
the laws.

Indefinite detention is not a new concept, nor, against federal laws.
Immigration laws cover this. It happened during the 1980 Mariel Cuban
Flotillas. Just left a few people free, Castro boarded criminals,
emptied his jails thus the need for indefinite detention.

One of those detained was a guy in the last cell on G-Block. Sick as
it was he rubbed **** on himself daily, oh forget the image.

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 10:05:50 -0500, wrote:

OP should attach a GPS tracker to each can

You've *got* more money than sense.

Looks like he's got you beat on two fronts.

Maybe three fronts! If he has a GED certificate.

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 14:43:04 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:

Removing the most bloodthirsty dictator since Stalin was a "terrible
move"?
You're an idiot.


Yes, it was a stupid move. Saddam was one of the factors holding down
Bin Laden, aqnd was essentially no threat at all to the U.S. Removing
him was a big favor to one of our REAL enemies.

Huh?

* Sadaam in power = we get attacked
* Sadaam gone = we don't get attacked

Look what we did to Sadaam! We invaded his country, evicted him from his
homes, confiscated his fortune, exiled his family, imprisoned his friends
and co-workers, killed his children, and ultimately got his skanky ass
hanged.

These consequences HAVE to be a deterrent to other dictators. If they're
rational....


I think we should have hung his horse.

Never mind.


--
"My doctor says I have a malformed public-duty gland
and a natural deficiency in moral fiber, and that I am therefore
excused from saving Universes."

wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 14:43:04 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:

Removing the most bloodthirsty dictator since Stalin was a
"terrible move"?
You're an idiot.


Yes, it was a stupid move. Saddam was one of the factors holding
down Bin Laden, aqnd was essentially no threat at all to the U.S.
Removing him was a big favor to one of our REAL enemies.

Huh?

* Sadaam in power = we get attacked
* Sadaam gone = we don't get attacked


Huh? No relation between those two things whatsoever.


Hey, you were the one that Sadaam was the butt-buddy of Osama, continually
counseling patience and Christian love for one's fellow man, until Osama
(evidently) got drunk or went off his meds - which really can't be blamed on
Sadaam.

On Jan 17, 7:54�pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 14:43:04 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:

Removing the most bloodthirsty dictator since Stalin was a
"terrible move"?
You're an idiot.

Yes, it was a stupid move. Saddam was one of the factors holding
down Bin Laden, aqnd was essentially no threat at all to the U.S.
Removing him was a big favor to one of our REAL enemies.

Huh?

* Sadaam in power = we get attacked
* Sadaam gone = we don't get attacked

Huh? No relation between those two things whatsoever.

Hey, you were the one that Sadaam was the butt-buddy of Osama, continually
counseling patience and Christian love for one's fellow man, until Osama
(evidently) got drunk or went off his meds - which really can't be blamed on
Sadaam.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

besides saddam is gone now and just the other day one of bin ladens
buddies tried to blow up a airliner.......

besides these terrorists are not effective. if they really wanted to
muck up our country they would of userd SAMs by now to take a few
airliners down about the same time one day.

flying would stop, travel and tourism grind to a halt, our economy
would tank for sure.

how many would fly with idiots shooting at airliners?

Doug Miller wrote:

bush pushed for patriot act warrantless wiretapping torture and
indefinite detention. no doubt in hitlers time you wuld of supported
him too/

None of which would have made any difference at all if Congress had
not passed
the laws.
No point in continuing this. You clearly have *no* idea at all what
you're talking about.-


boy thats sure true of you

Like I said, genius boy: go back to grade school civics class. Come
back when
you've figured out which branch of government is responsible for
making laws.

Regarding the Patriot Act, it is true that Congress did pass it. The entire
thing, however, was proposed by the Executive Branch and the Congress, in a
moment of lucidity, saw the worth of the proposal.

Now the Patriot Act (PA) itself was not a single law - it was a collection
of revisions to existing laws scattered throughout the United States Code,
most of which were designed to bring existing law into sync with modern
society.

For example, on judicially-sanctioned wiretaps, the law prior to the PA
required a U.S. Attorney to get a wiretap order from every federal judicial
district in which a call originated. With some 50-odd judicial districts in
the era of cell phones, this requirement became impossibly burdensome. The
new law permits tapping the "person," not the physical telephone instrument.

Originally, "letter subpoenas" of financial transactions were limited to
financial institutions (banks), auto rental agencies, and storage
facilities - entities that were often involved in narcotics smuggling. The
PA broadened that ability to account for any type of transactions used by
terrorists (National Security Letters), such as Western Union wire
transfers. The PA further broadened the used of "letter subpoenas" to
include ANY business documents, not just financial.

On the morning of 9-11, after the first plane strike, FBI agents fanned out
to Boston hotels asking for the names of guests who had checked out since
midnight. Their theory was that by comparing guest names to passenger
manifests they might discover additional suspects. In EVERY case, the FBI
was denied this information, the hotels citing "privacy" concerns. Had the
FBI had available to them the "letter subpoena" tool, they would have been
able to obtain those data. Note: There is no "constitutional" protection for
ordinary business records, but, until the PA, there was no easy/fast way to
compel document production either.

The original PA, which was set to expire in four years, was passed in the
Senate with one dissenting vote. When the four years passed, the PA (with
some modifications) made permanent via another congressional vote.

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:54:48 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 14:43:04 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:

Removing the most bloodthirsty dictator since Stalin was a
"terrible move"?
You're an idiot.


Yes, it was a stupid move. Saddam was one of the factors holding
down Bin Laden, aqnd was essentially no threat at all to the U.S.
Removing him was a big favor to one of our REAL enemies.

Huh?

* Sadaam in power = we get attacked
* Sadaam gone = we don't get attacked


Huh? No relation between those two things whatsoever.


Hey, you were the one that Sadaam was the butt-buddy of Osama, continually
counseling patience and Christian love for one's fellow man, until Osama
(evidently) got drunk or went off his meds - which really can't be blamed on
Sadaam.


What? Saddam was Osama's enemy and helped keep him distracted. Given
the chance, Saddam would have killed Bin Laden for us.

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:00:52 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Jan 17, 7:54?pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 14:43:04 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:

Removing the most bloodthirsty dictator since Stalin was a
"terrible move"?
You're an idiot.

Yes, it was a stupid move. Saddam was one of the factors holding
down Bin Laden, aqnd was essentially no threat at all to the U.S.
Removing him was a big favor to one of our REAL enemies.

Huh?

* Sadaam in power = we get attacked
* Sadaam gone = we don't get attacked

Huh? No relation between those two things whatsoever.

Hey, you were the one that Sadaam was the butt-buddy of Osama, continually
counseling patience and Christian love for one's fellow man, until Osama
(evidently) got drunk or went off his meds - which really can't be blamed on
Sadaam.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

besides saddam is gone now and just the other day one of bin ladens
buddies tried to blow up a airliner.......

besides these terrorists are not effective. if they really wanted to
muck up our country they would of userd SAMs by now to take a few
airliners down about the same time one day.

flying would stop, travel and tourism grind to a halt, our economy
would tank for sure.

how many would fly with idiots shooting at airliners?

Those terrorists don't need anyting so fancy. They could easily plant
bombs under rural roads and blow up a school bus every morning
somewhere in the heartland. Cheap, impossible to stop, and boy would
that get our attention!

Those terrorists don't need anyting so fancy. They could easily plant
bombs under rural roads and blow up a school bus every morning
somewhere in the heartland. Cheap, impossible to stop, and boy would
that get our attention!-

yeah but blowing up busses would just enrage us

ending airplane based travel and tourism already weak from the
economic dump, would cripple our economy.

9 11 was a supposed terrorist success, but taking out a nuke plant
would of been far more effective. at a vulnerable location the mass
evacuations and having a permanent dead zone in the US.......

more effective than taking out the twin towers, to the vast majority
of americans it didnt effect them directly other than watching it on
tv.

I feel terrible for those who lost loved ones.........

but just the chaos of a nuke plant or just its waste core pool being
breached , old cores arent in a containment building just a
industrial steel non hardened building.

since the terrorists have no value for life we are extremely
vulnerable

On Jan 17, 3:43*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
These consequences HAVE to be a deterrent to other dictators. If they're
rational....

Rational dictator is an oxymoron. No rational person would become a
dictator.

A rational person would look at the history of dictatorships, realize
that at some point in their rule, probably early on, that they're
going to end up knifed, shot, hung, or beheaded. Very few manage to
live out their natural lives, and even fewer of those manage to be the
dictators of prosperous, popular nations. Rational people would know
that the odds are stacked decisively against them, and would not take
the job on a bet.

On Jan 18, 10:46�am, wrote:
On Jan 17, 3:43�pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

These consequences HAVE to be a deterrent to other dictators. If they're
rational....

Rational dictator is an oxymoron. No rational person would become a
dictator.

A rational person would look at the history of dictatorships, realize
that at some point in their rule, probably early on, that they're
going to end up knifed, shot, hung, or beheaded. Very few manage to
live out their natural lives, and even fewer of those manage to be the
dictators of prosperous, popular nations. Rational people would know
that the odds are stacked decisively against them, and would not take
the job on a bet.

Saddam was just what the mid east needed. Brutal take no prisoners
kill anyone, bluff having WMDs so iran wouldnt attack you He was like
a control rod on a nuclear reactor.


Here what the chernobly area looks like, just think the terrorists
could do this here

http://www.nuclearflower.com/page.htm

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 06:00:45 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:


Those terrorists don't need anyting so fancy. They could easily plant
bombs under rural roads and blow up a school bus every morning
somewhere in the heartland. Cheap, impossible to stop, and boy would
that get our attention!-

yeah but blowing up busses would just enrage us


Yeah, the entire country would be mad, but would just go on about
their business.

Are you insane?

On Jan 18, 11:24�am, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 06:00:45 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:

Those terrorists don't need anyting so fancy. They could easily plant
bombs under rural roads and blow up a school bus every morning
somewhere in the heartland. Cheap, impossible to stop, and boy would
that get our attention!-

yeah but blowing up busses would just enrage us

Yeah, the entire country would be mad, but would just go on about
their business.

Are you insane?

So exactly WHAT can we do?

Now we could claim bin ladens in pakistan currently shall we nuke it?
Oh he moved to afghanistan Nuke it too

After 9 11 we mired ourselves in 2 wars, created way more terrorists
because of GITMO.

So what do you recommend?

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:54:48 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 14:43:04 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:

Removing the most bloodthirsty dictator since Stalin was a
"terrible move"?
You're an idiot.


Yes, it was a stupid move. Saddam was one of the factors holding
down Bin Laden, aqnd was essentially no threat at all to the U.S.
Removing him was a big favor to one of our REAL enemies.

Huh?

* Sadaam in power = we get attacked
* Sadaam gone = we don't get attacked


Huh? No relation between those two things whatsoever.


Hey, you were the one that Sadaam was the butt-buddy of Osama, continually
counseling patience and Christian love for one's fellow man, until Osama
(evidently) got drunk or went off his meds - which really can't be blamed
on
Sadaam.


What? Saddam was Osama's enemy and helped keep him distracted. Given
the chance, Saddam would have killed Bin Laden for us.


ahh the things that could have been. We should arm Saddam (in hell). I
always thought it was a mistake to take the Ba'ath party apart. They may
have been able to rally support for order. Sure would of been better than
the cluster**** that followed the invasion.

On Jan 18, 1:32�pm, "Master Betty" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:54:48 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 14:43:04 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:

Removing the most bloodthirsty dictator since Stalin was a
"terrible move"?
You're an idiot.

Yes, it was a stupid move. Saddam was one of the factors holding
down Bin Laden, aqnd was essentially no threat at all to the U.S.
Removing him was a big favor to one of our REAL enemies.

Huh?

* Sadaam in power = we get attacked
* Sadaam gone = we don't get attacked

Huh? No relation between those two things whatsoever.

Hey, you were the one that Sadaam was the butt-buddy of Osama, continually
counseling patience and Christian love for one's fellow man, until Osama
(evidently) got drunk or went off his meds - which really can't be blamed
on
Sadaam.

What? Saddam was Osama's enemy and helped keep him distracted. Given
the chance, Saddam would have killed Bin Laden for us.

ahh the things that could have been. We should arm Saddam (in hell). I
always thought it was a mistake to take the Ba'ath party apart. They may
have been able to rally support for order. Sure would of been better than
the cluster**** that followed the invasion.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We should of never invaded Iraq!!

But once we had we should of taken over but kept saddam as a puppet
leader, on a short leash

Master Betty wrote:

ahh the things that could have been. We should arm Saddam (in hell). I
always thought it was a mistake to take the Ba'ath party apart. They
may have been able to rally support for order. Sure would of been
better than the cluster**** that followed the invasion.

Invasions, by their very nature, ARE cluster****s.

About the only invasion I can recall that didn't result in mass confusion,
regrettable loss of life, and general mayhem was when the Duchy of Grand
Fenwick landed in New York.

wrote:

We should of never invaded Iraq!!

But once we had we should of taken over but kept saddam as a puppet
leader, on a short leash

Much like the Emperor of Japan? Or the Queen of Hawaii? Those both worked
out pretty well.

We didn't get a chance to retain Hitler - the godless communists got in the
way.

wrote:
On Jan 17, 3:43 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
These consequences HAVE to be a deterrent to other dictators. If
they're rational....

Rational dictator is an oxymoron. No rational person would become a
dictator.

A rational person would look at the history of dictatorships, realize
that at some point in their rule, probably early on, that they're
going to end up knifed, shot, hung, or beheaded. Very few manage to
live out their natural lives, and even fewer of those manage to be the
dictators of prosperous, popular nations. Rational people would know
that the odds are stacked decisively against them, and would not take
the job on a bet.

You're probably right. Students of political science, however, agree that
the best form of government (Churchill's notions notwithstanding) is one
called Benevolent Despot.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Master Betty wrote:

ahh the things that could have been. We should arm Saddam (in hell). I
always thought it was a mistake to take the Ba'ath party apart. They
may have been able to rally support for order. Sure would of been
better than the cluster**** that followed the invasion.

Invasions, by their very nature, ARE cluster****s.

About the only invasion I can recall that didn't result in mass confusion,
regrettable loss of life, and general mayhem was when the Duchy of Grand
Fenwick landed in New York.


It was easier to get Japan up and running from what I understand. But
Japanese are motivated people in general.

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:02:34 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Jan 18, 11:24?am, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 06:00:45 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:

Those terrorists don't need anyting so fancy. They could easily plant
bombs under rural roads and blow up a school bus every morning
somewhere in the heartland. Cheap, impossible to stop, and boy would
that get our attention!-

yeah but blowing up busses would just enrage us

Yeah, the entire country would be mad, but would just go on about
their business.

Are you insane?

So exactly WHAT can we do?

Now we could claim bin ladens in pakistan currently shall we nuke it?
Oh he moved to afghanistan Nuke it too

After 9 11 we mired ourselves in 2 wars, created way more terrorists
because of GITMO.

So what do you recommend?

Well, if we had spent all the money we spent fighting those useless
wars and simply used it to build houses, schools, hospitals, and other
infrastructure for the people in Iraq, Pakistan and Afganistan, the
terrorists would have been largely put out of business by now.
Terrorists would have a pretty impossible time trying to recruit
people that have a somewhat decent life already. They can only recruit
people who see no other way to improve their situation. People who are
not desperate, don't become human bombs. They have no motive to do so.
How's that for starters?