In article <4pi2t1h638lhepf8ha4nl3inj28lpah3rg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, trudogg says...
>..you don't see because you don't want to see. Bush manipulated the
There isn't anything TO see.
ALL information that p***** through human hands is "manipulated". Again,
that
doesn't constitute a lie.
>evidence, that has been brought out after the fact. Or maybe you
>haven't been paying attention to the whole Plame affair? The memo from
I've been paying attention to the ENTIRE "Plame affair".
>10 Downing Street? The majority of the UN voted against our invading
>Iraq and Bush twisted some arms, spread some lies and went in anyway.
What percentage of the UN do you think would vote to invade Darfur? Does
that
mean that Black people, especially non-Muslim Black people should be
slaves?
>And now, his totally irrational insistence that we stay is giving the
There's nothing irrational about it at all... unless you think our stays
in
Germany and Japan were "irrational". How long DID we occuply Japan?
>insurgent/terrorists more training and recruitment bonuses than they
>could have scored in decades. He is spending all of our money over
>there when it could be spent over here making things safer. As it is,
>we are no better off than we were on 9-10.
Guadalcanal and Midway gave the Japanese training and recruitment bonuses.
I'm
thinking they didn't strictly pay off in the way the Japanese hoped that
they
would.
Personally, I like gathering all of these 10th century screwheads in one
place
so we don't have to chase around the globe killing them... much less kill
them
in Manhattan or South Euclid.
>>As to Afghanistan, what would be your alternative? The argument that we
should
>>have kept trying to "extradite" bin Laden from Afghanistan is as foolish
as a
>>claim that the proper reaction to Pearl Harbor would have been to try to
>>"extradite" Tojo, Yamamoto, Genda and ****hida. I find it doubly ironic
that
>>some who are SO incensed at our having toppled the Taliban for aiding,
abetting
>>and tolerating bin Laden, CHEERED the BATF and FBI attacks on the Branch
>>Davidians, when the latter hadn't so much as THREATENED anyone,
nevermind
>>murdered 3,000 people or harbored anyone who did.
>
>..I don't know where you're going with this now. The Branch Davidians
>were largely a joke. And I said I agreed with Afghanistan, we just
I wanted to make sure that I understood where you're coming from.
>didn't finish the job. If our intel is so bad that we can't find and
How would you finish the job? They've got a working army and police
force,
which apparently does most of the fighting of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Certainly if we didn't finish the job in Afghanistan, we sure didn't
finish the
job in Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, etc. after the Civil War. We've
been
fighting terrorists there ever since.
>deal with these people there, we should get and stay the hell out. We
>need to fight terrorism the same way they are fighting us. Behind the
>scenes and with stealth. These BS invasions on false pretexts are
How would you fight Al Qaeda "behind the scenes" in Afghanistan, if that's
what
you mean? It was simply intolerable to have them running their own
country, and
now they don't.
>media events. It got your fool re-elected, but at what cost? I've read
>the final cost on Iraq could go between 1 and 2 trillion with
>everything being considered. Was G.W. Bush worth it? I have to say no,
>and neither was his father.
How much did WWII cost, and were the racial concentration camps that FDR
built
worth it?
--
--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with
210lb.
rapists.
|
